WI Hunters take Caution

Cougar caught on cam WI-  Hunters beware!

                                           Rusk County WI  November 8 2011

                                          Jackson County WI October 20th 2011

                                          Juneau County WI  October 16 2011
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/dnr-warns-hunters-to-watch-for-cougar/article_2f716434-104c-11e1-a87d-001cc4c03286.html

My Rant against Radford!

      This morning while searching for recent bigfoot news I happened upon an article which provided a link to Discovery.com news with the following article by Sarah Goforth.   “ 10 reasons why bigfoot’s a bust

        What bothers me is that Benjamin Radford is a known skeptic but his skepticism seems to be based on personal belief rather than science and what science does not have seems to be proof to him that bigfoot does not exist.  He also seems to ignore more compelling evidence and only focuses on weak or fake evidence.  I’ve watched him on television as well and he reminds me of that person who stands there arguing his point but when something is brought up that he can’t refute he closes his eyes and covers his ears.  

         In science, lack of evidence does not mean that it is proof of its non-existence nor does it prove its existence.  Until a body is found, skeptics and believers will be going round and round arguing their points and after reading Radford’s 10 reasons why bigfoot’s a bust…. I had to chime in and join the merry go round!

If you care to check it out yourself here is the link. http://news.discovery.com/animals/bigfoot-bust-reasons-photos-111012.html          

Below is the article with my thoughts.  (Following Bradford’s quotes are my thoughts.  (These are only my thoughts and opinions.  I am not a scientist or for that matter an experienced researcher.)

Discovery news contacted Benjamin Radford who lists his top 10 reasons why bigfoot is bogus.  After reading what he had to say I felt compelled to respond to some of his reasons which in my book hold no water.   

Here is Benjamin’s first reason:

Quote:

"There's no fossil record of anything fitting the description" of Bigfoot, said Radford. "There's simply nothing there."------------------------------

     Okay Benjamin that is a valid point but it does not prove bigfoot’s non existence.   I’d like to respond to this by asking, How many paleontologists set up dig sites deep within the purposed habitat of bigfoots?  In what is now China and Southeast Asia  Professor Gustav von Koenigswald had purchased some fossilized teeth being sold by a druggist stating they were dragons teeth which held a medicinal purpose. Had the teeth and jaw bones of Gigantopithecus not been found one can only assume that the stories associated with Gigantopithecus would have fallen in beside stories and tales of bigfoot and passed on as just that..stories because prior to discovering the fossils they did not exist.

Radford’s Next Reason:

Quote:

“Putting aside paleontology, Radford points out that today, if Bigfoot exists, it must disappear when it dies. "There's no hard evidence in the form of bones. There are no hair samples, there are no live or dead specimens," he said.

       Now I haven’t heard believers of bigfoot discuss acidic soil as to the reason why bones are not found.  I have heard that bigfoots bury their dead.  Now I am not certain of this because truth be told no one knows for fact that they do this.  I do know that there is an estimated 600,000 black bears in North America  which is about 100x the estimated bigfoot population in North America.  Now with that in mind how many people run across bear remains while out hiking deep in the forest.  There is an estimated 23-40 million deer in North America… and just like bear remains, it’s difficult to find the remains of deer while in the forest.  I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but you have to take in consideration of population numbers and also the fact that both the deer and the bear are hunted by humans.  Let’s not forget that deer are also prey to other wild animals.  The chances of finding deer remains in the woods should be 100x greater if not more.  As long as I am on the subject.. How many wolf or coyote remains are found?   And I’m not including road kills. 

Radford’s third reason:

Quote:

" it takes a decent population size to maintain a species. "If Bigfoot is a zoological reality," said Radford, "there has to be a breeding population."

For that population to be big enough to account for even a fraction of the sightings, there would need to be tens of thousands of the creatures in North America alone.

          Okay.. I thought about it and I think a person needs to step out of the box a little on this one.   Let’s say for a moment that what bigfoot researchers are saying is correct, that bigfoots are capable of critical thinking.  If this is true this would explain why they don’t get hit by cars.  Crossing the road would not be like that of other animals who run or walk across without the ability to connect the road to the presence of cars and that crossing it could be dangerous.

Now if they do have critical thinking abilities then I’m sure they are smart enough to avoid humans.  Now if you view them in a zoological stand point I believe that the questions asked are indeed worth pondering and have validity.  Once you view them in a more humanistic standpoint it kind of changes how those questions are answered.  A “good” researcher is going to ask these very questions and I’m sure that a lot of the information out there on bigfoots has been compiled with careful thought and consideration which is the best that can be done at this time.  For those that believe, theory is all they have but foundation of the majority of discoveries are based on theory.  You have to start somewhere right?

          Okay back to the question “Where are they?”  Well for hundreds of years people have been reporting sightings all over the world, the Natives and indigenous people have drawings and tell of stories.  There are thousands of reported sightings going back hundreds of years and probably hundreds and thousands of sightings that go unreported.  So in response to that question… Besides Hawaii, “Where aren’t they?” 

Keep in mind that stories and sightings of the mountain gorilla were considered a mythical tale by people until their “scientific” discovery in 1902. 

Radford’s reason four:

Quote:

“The majority of "evidence" for Bigfoot, says Radford, consists of eyewitness accounts. Yet as psychologists and schooled juries know, such accounts are famously inaccurate.

What's more, says Radford, "the problem is, that's not evidence, it's an anecdote...

        Yes, I agree that eyewitness accounts are inaccurate especially when fear is added to the equation.  As humans we tend to exaggerate when faced with fear because our senses are heightened and our response is fight or flight and not to gather exact details.  If out in the woods you come across a bear our memory of it is fear based so of course it’s going to be huge with large snarling teeth… but we do know it’s a bear and we don’t have to be expert hunters to know this.  We are also able to process “normal” bear behavior like standing up on two legs and being able to stiffly walk about but when it runs it will drop down to all fours.   A good majority of the sightings reported don’t add up to your typical wild life. And you’re right… it shouldn’t be dismissed.

Though I agree it’s not evidence it does give us reason to consider the possibilities.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of their non existence.

 Radford’s fifth reason:

Quote:

Aside from eyewitness reports, blurry images like this are what most Bigfoot believers rely on.”

But it's no proof, said Radford: "These photos show something that is probably alive, it's probably dark, it's not a cat, it's not a camel. It could be a Bigfoot, or it could be a deer or it could be a guy in a suit."

         To view the picture that Radford talks about you can follow the link provided at the top of this page.  I am choosing not to display it as it’s a very poor picture and I feel unfairly used to prove a point.   I find it insulting that anyone believes that we rely on pictures like this.  Radford has created so many tiny boxes for himself that he can’t seem to take in the bigger picture.   I’m sure he doesn’t realize that it takes much much more than this to drive those of us who believe in the possibility of its existence.  I mean come on, seriously??  I can’t imagine one single person spending so much time, energy and money to discover the truth from a photograph like this.   What I will agree with is that it’s a two dimensional image… pixels as Radford puts it. 

Radford’s sixth reason:

Quote:

“For Radford and other skeptics, the only acceptable standard of proof is the scientific one. Why, when there are countless researchers probing the far corners of every continent, is there no rigorous, documented, peer-reviewed evidence for Bigfoot? Only one answer makes sense, says Radford: Bigfoot isn't real.

      Scientific evidence!   This is the problem.  In order to have scientific evidence there needs to be a body according to scientists.  Without a body we cannot compare DNA or hair and tissue samples.  There is nothing at this time to compare what has been collected.  To say for certain that DNA found is that of a bigfoot you MUST have bigfoot DNA to reference it to.  I myself am not for killing one just to prove that they exist.

       To say there is no rigorous documented peer reviewed evidence and that the reason for such is because bigfoot does not exist to me seems a bit closed minded refusing to see what is actually out there as far as research.   There are some academic scientists researching the possible existence but not without a cost to their scientific reputations.  Those that do research openly do so at great cost.     The problem with most scientists is that everything has to be black or white or should be able to be proven by the scientific method.  The problem with using the scientific method on something that is living and has thought processes is that you cannot control the variables.   If not for scientists who were able to see beyond the realm of what was/is known (thinking outside the box so to speak) would we have space travel or even flight for that matter?  How about electricity, phones, computers?  Do I even need to mention Einstein and what he brought to science?   Every invention and a majority of discoveries begin with just a theory and no proof.

       The majority of evidence collected is yes, quite frankly anecdotal.   Which reminds me of what Thom Powell stated in his book “The Locals”, Quote; “There is so much secondary or anecdotal bigfoot evidence that if a bigfoot were being tried for a capital crime, he would get the electric chair.”

Radford’s seventh reason:

Quote:

“Speaking of science, Bigfoot believers sometimes complain that funding for Sasquatch Studies is hard to find. But scientists are notoriously good note-takers

Consider this league of biologists scouting for the elusive ivory-billed woodbecker in Arkansas'

"They were well-equipped, well-funded and made a sustained search," noted Radford. "What I found interesting was, what didn't they find? They didn't find Bigfoot."-------------

         Bigfoot research funding comes mostly if not entirely from private sources so yes, funding for sasquatch studies is hard to come by. 

         What “I” find interesting is that Radford finds it interesting that a well equipped, well funded hardcore investigation didn’t find bigfoot.   What kind of statement is that and what does it prove?           Does it mean that if that investigating team didn’t see any bears that it somehow proves bears don’t exist?   If you use that as an argument then one could use Native Americans as an argument to prove that they exist.  They have lived on the land for hundreds and thousands of years…. I’m pretty sure that would make them more of an expert as far as research goes.  They were more familiar with the land and knew what animals existed.  The difference is that their evidence was passed on as stories and through rock paintings only to become more of a mythical being/creature as time passed.  Which I believe was due to how they described them.  Their descriptions of bigfoot were other worldly…. Or paranormal if you will making it easier for others to view it as just story telling. 

Radford’s eighth reason:

Quote:

Dozens of new species, previously unknown to science, are discovered each year. But for the most part, they are tiny. Could Bigfoot really hide in such a peopled world?

"The last large animal to be found was probably the giant panda, and that was 100 years ago," said Radford.

       Again, what does this prove?  Absolutely nothing and to use this as proof that they don’t exist seems a bit childish and unscientific. 

 Radford’s ninth reason: Hoaxes

           Again the photo being discussed can be viewed through the link at the top of page.   Yes, Mr. Radford!  Something is wrong and I am so glad you brought up hoaxing.   I think of hoaxing as a virus which poisons the ability of intelligent people who take their research serious to be viewed as serious researchers.  I truly believe that it’s skeptics like you who spread that viral poison making you no better than the hoaxer.  You add fuel to the fire.  Now I believe that everyone should have some skepticism especially when it comes to research because it keeps the research honest.  One cannot assume that every hair sample, scat sample, or noise in the forest is bigfoot related.  One cannot simply believe every photo, video or personal account is genuine or true.  If you approach your research this way you’re going to be in for a rude awakening.   I truly believe that in this field you have to look at any evidence you gather and rationally explain it.  In the case of the blobsquatch photo… it’s too dark, too pixilated to prove or disprove. It has too many variables and should be tossed out.   Your so called hair sample… tossed out because it was proven to be a fiber.  Now had it been a hair sample that could not be matched with another species or comparable DNA.. that’s a keeper.  Why? Because it’s unknown.  It’s “potential” bigfoot evidence.  Notice I did not say it WAS bigfoot evidence.  Big difference.

           The damage one hoax does to the field cannot be measured.  For example:  Someone says they found tracks and has made a plaster cast to a large number of people. Now a majority of those people will recall the story of Ray Wallace, roll their eyes and say someone put on fake feet.  To those people every print found and casted will be hoaxes.  Do I even need to mention all the hub bub about the Patterson Gimlin film?   People are afraid to report sightings or experiences out of fear becoming a laughing stock.  When news hits the television you can’t help but notice the tongue and cheek attitude the news anchors take.  When everyday people with normal typical jobs will not discuss bigfoot for fear of ridicule, how do you expect anyone in the scientific community to come forward with their theories or beliefs?  They have a lot more at stake.  I give huge props to Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz  for their research contributions.  In my mind they are "REAL" scientists because they have an ability to see the possibilities, that the world we live in is neither black nor white.  There is a lot of grey area……… it is in this grey area that discoveries are made.

         What about your ruddy hair sample example?  What about it?  It’s one sample!  Did you talk to other scientists about other samples that have been collected?  Actual hair samples… not synthetic fibers?  I am wondering if you just choose to discuss evidence that can be explained away as proof that is not bigfoot related.  Why not discuss the things that can’t be explained or disproven?  What about those samples that have been analyzed for DNA but have no match?  Of course you can’t discuss these because it would mean that it’s something other than DNA profiles that we know exist and that would mean the possibility that there is another undiscovered species.  

So what do we have left for evidence?  Hoaxes or inconclusiveness and like I stated above, without a body there is no conclusive evidence.   Isn’t science the study and discovery of things?  Prior to discovery of anything there is either no evidence or inconclusive evidence.  Does that mean there is something wrong with science or the scientists?  Or does it mean there is nothing at all to discover?

And finally Radford’s tenth reason:

Foot prints meaningless scientifically.....Authentic or not???  No standard to measure them by?

            Okay, let me get this straight.  So you’re saying that an authentic bigfoot print or cast is meaningless scientifically because there is no standard to measure them by?  True there is no standard to measure them by but that does not make them scientifically meaningless.   I am sure Meldrum would have something to say about that and his opinion would greatly differ.   In matter of fact… I’m quite sure he has and he does have a differing opinion.   I also want to say that through the hundreds of plaster casts made AND studied, a “standard” has been made.   I really think that every skeptic should have to educate his or herself on the subject before using that subject to prove a point.   Again science was not founded on the already discovered.   Before discovery there is no “standard” to measure whatever they are trying to discover by.  When the first atom was discovered did it not exist because there was no standard to measure it by?   Imagine having heard the theory of an atom back in the late 1700’s?  I can just hear what the skeptics thought... In your words… “At best, a shot in the dark.”  

Bigfoot photos from Russia?

Courtesy of Cryptomundo.    Comments are welcome.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/russian-bigfoot-photographed/

Jacob's creature vs Bear Comparison

       The bottom picture was taken from a youtube video titled Bigfoot and Bear @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6sVp7HdybI   courtesy of susanfarns

Correlation between bigfoot structures and those of Apes

This link really give some insight into nest building and shelters that exist in the Ape world.  Some of these structures look very familiar to those of who have seen them out in the wild where Apes do not inhabit. 
http://home.worldcom.ch/negenter/00AA2_Apes_NestsFig_Lg01.html

Leaping into the world of bigfoot research

              When I was a child I remember watching television with my siblings, and as the tv channel was flipped from station to station I recall a moment where it was paused on the now famous video that was taken by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in 1967. At the time I was too young to know the significance of that video.  It obviously impacted me in small way but I was really too young to understand.  I was curious but that’s as far as it went.

                In 2007 that would change.  I was shown a website which had posted pictures taken from a game cam out in Pennsylvania of a creature that I felt didn’t really fit my personal view of what a bear should look like.  To me, it had more of primate quality to its’ appearance.  I became hooked, almost obsessed as I scoured the internet for images of bears and primates.  I tried to find images that were comparable in the posture just so I could sort the differences.   I also took on the task of trying to learn more about bigfoot.  As I delved deeper and deeper into the history of this creature, the more fascinated I had become. 

                In 2008 my boyfriend and I ventured out with the BFRO on few expeditions which only served to fuel my need to learn more, discover more.   Although we currently do not attend BFRO expeditions we do get out and do our own field research.  At this point I would like to say that our short time with the BFRO was a great experience and we met some pretty wonderful and knowledgeable people. 

                We are currently researching an area in Wisconsin which has had some sighting in the past.  Do I feel as if we will find tangible proof?  Probably not but the research might uncover other clues.  Who knows what we might find.  Science and research have to start somewhere, right?  Without research… there is no science. 

Which brings me to Thom Powell.   I am not mentioning him just because he is at the top of my list for people I want to interview, but because I loved the approach he took in his book “The Locals”.   Great read by the way and I would recommend it for anyone who believes and even those who do not believe!   With him being a science teacher I believe he is able to view reports and do research from a scientific standpoint.  One might say, “Well, you don’t have to be a scientist to prove anything.”  Very true, but a scientist will work within scientific constraints.  The down side to this is that scientific constraints would do nothing to assist us in the discovery of this creature if it was something other than flesh and blood and more of an interdimensional being.  Science could explain an undiscovered primate, but we need more technological advances to discover something that is more paranormal.

It is my belief when out in the field that you cannot simply state that every howl, tree structure, hair sample, pile of scat, or sounds of limbs breaking is bigfoot related.  Forests are full of wild animals and one must take this into consideration and use it to try and rule out known creatures.  I really think that a good researcher should look at everything skeptically, analyze their findings and only until it cannot be explained should it be considered “possible” evidence.

Evidence, what does constitute as evidence?  The definition of evidence is simple:  Something or things that is/are helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.    This seems like a great time to share with you a quote from Thom Powell taken from “The Locals”  “there is so much secondary or anecdotal bigfoot evidence that if a bigfoot were being tried for a capital crime, he would get the electric chair.”  -Thom Powell, The Locals 2003

There are some in the bigfoot research community that do not put much stock into tree structures being evidence.  My colleague (boyfriend) is one of them.  He does not dismiss the idea, but does feel that there are too many other variables that could explain the presence of them.  He does have a point and I do try to look at them from the “skeptical” standpoint until I find one that defies any explanation other than bigfoot or possible human.   I have one such find that shared on here entitled “Somewhere in WI 2010” that even defies (at least I think so) being built by human unless of course that human was  strong enough to bend a 12-14” diameter trees over which cracked under the pressure and able break off and  place a huge tree top over them to form a shelter.  Not all the trees were 12-14” in diameter, many were smaller but all were pulled in towards the center to create a natural cover from the elements.   The area under this “shelter” had to measure no less than 7’ wide and no less than 10-12’ feet long.  The tree top that sat upon this “shelter” looked as if it had come from a tree that was about 20+ feet away and stood about just as high.   Feel free to look at the pictures and tell me your thoughts… whether skeptical or not, I would love to hear what you have to say.  There are two others that are titled “Somewhere in WI part 2 and part 3 which I feel do not fit my “structures as evidence criteria” but they are interesting.  I am fascinated with structures because of the behavioral aspect of them.  They show thought process and possible communication.  I hope to be able to share more photos as I continue my research.

The bigfoot research community- I am not an expert researcher, nor do I claim to be.  I am at best still an amateur in this field, but I do know that to state this is a bigfoot research community that it should be treated as a community.  Every organization is going to have opposing thoughts.  Which I believe is actually good thing.  For research to be fruitful you need to have different views and ideas… the more you have, the more researchers can learn about what works and what doesn’t.  I do not however agree with groups pitting against one another because of their opposing views.  I don’t feel this is beneficial to the community.  The truth of the matter is that no one truly knows what works or even the truth about what bigfoot/s really are.  All the information out there regarding these creatures are in fact only theories.

In closing I would like to thank all of you researchers out there who have contributed their time, money and patience!  I do not think that people who do not pursue the answers to the age old question "Do they exist?" can appreciate the vast amount of time, money and patience it takes to acquire even the smallest amount of evidence.  I hope you all know that your work has not gone unnoticed and unappreciated by those of us working beside you to find the answers.

You can find me here at facebook   http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wisconsin-Sasquatch/187913024609417   Twitter: @WiscSquatch  and blogger: http://wisconsinsasquatch.blogspot.com/  

Erickson project: Possible Female Sasquatch

 Taken from Cryptomundo:  Photo of possible female sasquatch lying under a tree.   Follow the link below.  Tell me what you think!

http://networkedblogs.com/m1Igo?a=share&ref=nf

Another trip today

My partner in crime and I took a drive back to "somewhere in WI"  We are trying to systematically explore trails in that area.  Unfortunately we really didn't find anything interesting or hear anything.  Of course though he's not big into structures anyways.   We did however come across at least one or two deer on every trail we hit. They seemed to just stand there watching us in the middle of the trail out in the open as we approached.  We spooked up a couple turkeys as well. One deer scared the bajesus out of us as it was laying under a tree and didn't notice it until we were right on top of it and it took off.  My first thought was BEAR..stop drop and roll.. no wait.. run.. no that's not right either... oh ya play dead.  What a relief when I seen the white tail leap off into the thick brush and trees. Whewwww!! 

The bugs were aweful today, looking forward to fall.  Hopefully we can get out there more then. Keeping fingers crossed.

The forums are now open!!

The forums to a newly created web site is up and running. 

Many paranormal topics to choose from and depending on your stance crypto topics as well. Start a conversation, ask a question, or share your thoughts, ideas and experiences.

For those of you who run the Vista operating system... you will need to scroll down to the bottom of the forums page to find the register link.

Signing up is quick and easy.  Follow the link below.  Feel free to check out the rest of the site.  I apologize if this sounds more like an ad but I want to get the word out there as this is a recently launched paranormal web site. 

http://www.paranormal.us.com/forums/

Great Paranormal web site~

I wanted to share this great web site.  Not only is it eye catching, it also contains substance. Lots of information at your fingertips as well as a forum.  Looking forward to watching this site grow and evolve.

Enjoy!
 http://www.paranormal.us.com/
 

Somewhere in WI 2011- Part 3

I woke at 6:30 this morning excited about the hike/exploration that my boyfriend and I had planned for the day.   We packed our gear and drove the hour and a half to our destination while listening to a podcast from blogtalk radio with Thom Powell as the guest....to set the mood.   We had been going to this particular area since 2008 and just recently started cataloging the trails as we explore them.
Unfortunately it had been raining off and on before we arrived but I thought... hmm,  maybe that's in our favor, the ground would be soft enough for impressions.   The forest floor is rather spongy so no prints would ever be found there and the trails gave us nothing. However we were able to soak up enough water that it looked as if we went wading knee deep in the nearby stream and our waterproof hikers felt as though we had.  So much for waterproof. 

As we explored the trail and at times off trail to venture deeper into the woods I began to notice a lot of the typical tree bends, v breaks and interwoven trees.  I also began to notice there just may be a pattern.   It seems to me that when I come across something that looks like a nest or shelter so to speak, there are many of these bends and breaks in the area surrounding the assumed shelter.

I had camera in hand and truth be told I was looking for that "what in the world" find but unfortunately all I found were the bends,breaks, weaves that are already found in mass quantities over the internet and possibly a few old abandoned shelters where the leaves have fallen away leaving only a skeleton of what it once.

Pictures really do not do any of these any justice at all.  These are something that a person has to see with their own eyes in person to really be able to take it all in.  When you come into an area that is filled with these though, there is an eeriness all around which also plays into how these are perceived. At least I believe it does.  Anyways,  I really didn't want to  fill this blog with more of the same old same old as far as tree structures, but I will share the pictures I was able to get today.

This tree bend was just one of many that we had seen during our hike.  One side is braced by a Y branch almost as if to keep it from bending too far down,  the other side is held down by a birch tree that had been broke off. 

Same bend but viewed from opposite side.

There were tons of so called "V" breaks, although this one is probably natural, I thought it was pretty cool just because! :D   What a beautiful area huh?

I thought this was interesting because two smaller trees off the side are pulled in towards each other and another tree placed over the top as if to hold them in place.  You can barely make out the smaller tree to the left of the pic that is pulled in.

Closer view of the above pic where you can see the tree to the left better.

Just another shot of the trees

I do apologize because these pictures really don't do this justice and without being there this looks more like a simple tree fall than anything else.  In the background you can see some smaller trees pulled downward.  I tried to get some of those in these shots.

Portion of the tree pictured just before this one: If this tree still had it's leaves and the branches placed over the top still full of leaves this would have made a wonderful shelter.

Big tree!  Again the same small trees in the background. I just noticed the small white area the the left of the tree.  Possibly a bug from my flash. With all the bugs out, I'm surprised that this is the only time I captured this.

Another tree bend located near the above possible shelter.

Same tree bend, different angle showing the broken branches holding it in place.

This is the pile of broken branches holding the above tree bend in place.  The top of the tree is to the left and tucked under the bigger branches.

I don't know when my boyfriend and I will get the chance to get out there again but I hope we do real soon.  I also hope that my finds will be a little more exciting.

Chimp behavior vs. bigfoot: Nest building

Lately I have become interested in behaviors in chimps that resemble reported bigfoot behavior and remembered that Jane Goodall had spoken publicly about her belief that bigfoot exist.  So I decided to start my quest with her.   My search had led me to a web site called osareal.com a very informative site created by Pearl Jo Prihoda who has spent years researching bigfoot. She had made mention of Jane Goodall and had posted a very interesting diagram created by Izawa/Itani  in 1966 depicting various types of chimp nests.  These diagrams are very similar to what I have seen and photographed here in Wisconsin and Michigan.  With her permission I am re-posting this diagram here to share. 

Courtesy of Pearl Jo Prihoda @ osareal.com- Artist: Izawa/Itani 1966  home.worldcom.

                                                                   Thank you Pearl Jo!

Somewhere in WI 2010

View from side

Another view from the side

Different angle from side side

Back end

Area I measured in red circle

Measurement of tree diameter

View under tree structure canopy

Another shot of back end of structure

Another side view angle

Red arrow points to a tree with top broke off.  Top of this tree is perched on top of the tree structure as if to hold it in place.  White arrow points to another form of structure placed in the tree line.  Note the angle to which the top of the this tree had come off did not match up to the final resting place of the top.

Area of woods leading up to location of the above structure.

You can sort of see the top of the tree that was placed over the tree bends.  Note that the tree that it came from was to the right of this photo and quite a distance away.

Another shot of the back side of this structure. My partner in crime who is about 6' 1 - 6' 2 stands next to it.  Again the red circle is where I measured the diameter of the tree.

              These photos were taken last year in September after a big storm had moved through the area.   The photos just do not do what I came upon any justice.  All these trees were pulled together towards the center with brush and a huge tree top placed over it.   In hind site I should have measured the distance from the structure to the tree with the missing top and also measured the total size of this.
               Now just for the record, I do not believe that every fallen tree in the shape of an x is bigfoot related.  It takes something that is a little harder to explain to pique my curiosity.  I am also not saying that these are in fact bigfoot related but it was strange enough to make me wonder.  As for my above partner,  it takes more proof for him... like seeing an actual bigfoot build one.  Until then, I continue to annoy him with my fascination of these types of structures. :D

Somewhere in WI 2008

Deer leg~ I know this has nothing to do with trees but I found this to be interesting.  In 2010 I read a great book by Thom Powell called the Locals.  At one point he talks about a sighting by a career wildlife biologist in California who had a bigfoot sighting.  As he described his account he mentions coming across a fresh doe carcass.  The right leg ripped off from the body.  Of course this wasn't the main piece of the story but I point it out because while reading this I remembered this photo.  Again I am not saying that this photo is bigfoot related but it was enough to make me wonder.

Close up of area where the bone was snapped.

The branches that were bent down were between 5- 8 inches in diameter.  They were all bent down towards the ground creating a covered area under the tree.  There was also fallen tree that added as extra cover underneath but I have been unable to locate the picture.

Branches at the top broken downward.  I found the exact same thing frequently during my expedition in Michigan.

Pine bent over blocking a pathway

          These photos were taken in the same area as the other Somewhere in Wisconsin but in a different location within forest.