Guest DWA Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 "Make-up artists Chris Walas and Rick baker have analyzed the film and concluded a hoax. Scientists like primatologist Dr. Bill Sellers have analyzed the film and concluded a hoax." Now, if their opinions were backed up by anything we'd be getting somewhere. Alas, they aren't. Although I am so sure I am gonna get links to the detailed papers that I can read for myself. Right? "why would we presume that anybody getting a cam-trap shot of anything unusual would just go public with it?" The various scientists and program directors at the conservation groups conducting vast animal detection efforts smack in the middle of Bigfoot habitat that I have communicated with are very clear about why they would go public with good evidence of Bigfoot... No they are not. They are flat blowin' smoke and all of us know it. It's easy to say that. But apparently for them not so easy to understand how their very attitude ensures it will not happen. Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 So, basically, they are lying? Aren't you the one who constantly lectures others about assuming someone that you don't know is lying about something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 See, when one is in denial about something...that is the very hardest thing for one to see. Isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) ^^ That doesn't even make sense. Do you just crack open a random bigfoot fortune cookie and repeat the phrase? Edited October 23, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 ^^^See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 No special pleading here. It is proven that coyotes avoid camera traps. Do you think they know what one is? The only difference between BF and coyotes is that they can spot them before being triggered or watch them trigger on other animals. If I can find them then they can also. Of course if you say they are no smarter than a coyote (which to me is special pleading considering evidence to the contrary). I'm with Norseman, in that we do have gamecam pictures of them. But we all know how that goes. They are either hoaxes or misidentification. It always comes back to the idea that they know what a camera is, which is another huge assumption. It's a human contruct as are the bait stations. That could be all that's necessary. Yes I do have problems with the camp/cabin idea. Though this has been proven to be true (and of course all anecdotal the skeptic). It is an easy thing to prove to yourself. If you are having some activity you think is BF, set up some cams. If the activity stops then whatever it is is aware of the cameras. It's been done and repeated. It doesn't prove what it is but it does prove camera awareness. Kitakaze's Canadian cam project above states there are 250+ cams in a 22000 sq km area. That's 8500 sq mi. So 1 cam per 34 sq mi, that is some camera saturation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Thanks, Norse. I do remember this one now. The YT video is 144p, so it's not very crisp. Why can this not be a hunter? I dont think its a hunter because Fred Eichler would not have posted it if he thought it was. And Fred's reputation is iron clad. For him to post that on Eastons Bowhunting TV took guts, because truthfully most hunters are not believers in Bigfoot. And he said that the video had freaked him out and that he had a funny feeling the whole time they were hunting there. Watching his show for years I'm sure that the location was remote and Eastons probably rented the whole shooting match. Which means that what or who is on that video was not part of the group. Or known to the group. This is great footage of him in Alaska being charged by a Bear. These guys are the pinnacle of bow hunting and get to hunt in some amazing locales. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PuYs8Dnef3s Anyhow its a upright walking furry something walking past a camera trap. And we can say without a doubt its not a hoax perpetrated by Eastons. Maybe there is some local tramping around in there with a furry suit while those guys are Bear hunting in there? Pretty crazy to think about in its own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The greatest security device ever devised to secure your tent site at night is a combination of four trap cams, in four corners, each one facing another at right angles, covering the other, so that nothing can come in or even approach the other cameras without tripping a camera. If you want to super-proof your camping area from unwanted critters, overlap trap cams by the scores. Guaranteed to work. They won't come near you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) It is proven that coyotes avoid camera traps. Google "coyote game cam" and you will see a mountain of coyote failing at avoiding game cams. Ah, but Bigfoot are much more rare than coyote, right? Except your fellow enthusiasts want you to know Bigfoot lives in every state and province of North America. Ah, but really, really real Bigfoots are smarter than coyotes right? So are people. This is fugitive survivalist Malcolm Naden who was captured by police using game cameras... That was a very stealthy person who did not want to be seen or caught and was actively putting all his effort into not being found and surviving in the wilderness. Cameras in the Rockies were placed in a fashion where the topography and resourced dictated the movement of all species in the area. One camera per 10x10 km cell. During a six month period, coyotes had a cumulative detection probability of 0.934, higher than that of cougar, red fox, wolverine. The entire purpose of the project was to determine what species were there. Bigfoot was not one of them. 2.2 Field methods 2.2.1 Camera deployment and sampling design Deploying and servicing hundreds of remote cameras requires many long hours by resource conservation personnel on the trail, moving by foot, ski, and horseback. Camera batteries last about 4 – 6 months, therefore, to keep camera operational year round, cameras are serviced approximately three times per year. When changing batteries, data are downloaded, camera positioning is verified and Steenweg et al. Page 20 Canadian Rockies Remote Camera Multi-Species Monitoring Project – Final Report obstructing vegetation is removed as necessary. Excessive leaf motion in front of cameras can vastly increase the number of pictures that need to be classified (up to 1000x more pictures). Most camera work is performed in conjunction with other Ecological Integrity monitoring, research, or maintenance work. Some parks also capitalize on the availability of volunteers to help service the cameras, promoting increased citizen scientist involvement in the national parks. Initial camera deployment involves finding a suitable site on human-use or wildlife trails. Ideal sites are in an area that naturally funnels animal movement due to topography and at a junction of human and/or wildlife trails. Cameras are attached to trees at about waist height pointed slightly downwards. Camera models used were predominantly covert motion-trigger cameras (Reconyx Hyperfire and Rapidfire) with few visible glow Silent-image cameras (Reconyx , Holmen, Wisconsin). Cameras are set to take 5 pictures per movement trigger with no delay between triggers. Following recommendations by Steenweg et al. (2012; Objective 1d), resource conservation personnel have placed cameras at a density of one camera per 10x10-km cell (1/100 km2) in YNP, KNP, BNP and northern JNP. We chose to sample at a scale of 10x10 km cells because it creates a density that is logistically feasible given the large area of each park, it ensures near-complete sampling of each park, and it provides more than one camera per average grizzly bear home range (~520 km2, ~1405 km2 for females and males respectively; Stevens and Gibeau 2005). Because WLNP is a smaller park, however, it was feasible to intensify sampling to 1 Steenweg et al. Page 21 Canadian Rockies Remote Camera Multi-Species Monitoring Project – Final Report camera per 5x5-km cell. We distributed cameras across elevations ranging from 1013m to 2521m (mean: 1645m). Within sampling cells, we maximized detection probability by selecting sites where animals were like to travel based on topography, the confluence of wildlife trails, and grizzly bear rub (wildlife communication) trees (Clapham et al. 2014). Most cameras operated year round, but a few cameras were inactive during the middle of winter when they were covered by deep snow. Camera data images were classified into species, sex and age classes using program Timelapse (Greenberg and Godin 2012). We also classified the number of humans and horse riders at each camera site. Unlike photos animals, photos of humans are deleted following classification. Learn more about the actual science of species detection here. It's not about really, really real Bigfoots so it may be boring for you... http://www.cfc.umt.edu/research/heblab/files/Steenweg2015MultiSpeciesOccupancy.pdf Edited October 23, 2015 by kitakaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) All that being said, coyotes can and do avoid game cams when they choose. That doesn't mean they all do. Your biggest problem is that there are no exceptions. There are always exceptions. But you've already eliminated the bigfoot exceptions. And as I said before, those cameras in no way or form saturate any given area. They are placed in the most likely areas for most animals. All numbers tell you is which animals have the highest population density or cover the largest ranges. Since you've already eliminated the possibility of bigfoot, there is certainly no way we will ever get a picture of one. Showing pictures of that guy just tells me humans aren't as aware or stealthy as we think we are. That is all that proves. Even animals are more aware than that. If to you sasquatch is no smarter than a rabbit and a lot less than a human in the woods, then I can see there is definitely a big problem with a lack of photos. What does the amount of time servicing cams have to do with anything? That just goes to show you can't feasibly saturate an area. They called it logistically feasible. That just means in plain English they do the best they can covering any given area. And don't come back to me about a disinterest in wildlife. That was a cheap shot considering my degree is in Wildlife Biology! Edited October 23, 2015 by BigTreeWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 If your degree is in wildlife biology, then you really should know better. Saying that not all coyotes avoid game cams applies as much to Bigfoot as to coyotes. Over seven years the Cascades Carnivore Project has documented every medium to large animal species living in the Cascades range. A stealthy medium-sized nocturnal mammal with a population of one, a wolverine, has been documented and genetically verified. And not one Bigfoot in seven years, right smack where they are supposed to be.The Bluff Creek Project has done the same thing yet they were specifically testing the hypothesis of whether or not Bigfoot exists in the area. They have reached the same conclusion - Bigfoot does not exist where it was supposed to have been, at least in 1967. This does not matter to the Bigfoot enthusiast. The belief system is built on the indoctrination of excuse making. There is nothing you can do in actually testing the claim of Bigfoot existing that will ever do anything to a devout Bigfoot believer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I do know better. Your biggest problem you equate bigfoot with coyotes, big assumption on your part. Wolves are not one of the large animal species they have pictures of. I know wolves have been present in that area the same way I know something like BF is also present in the area. I have found the same types of evidence for both. Only seen one wolf in my life in the wild, never seen a bigfoot. It has nothing to do with belief. There are higher things I believe in and sasquatch isn't one of them. I will not be like a lot of biologists and ignore found evidence because it doesn't fit into my world view or belief system. You choose to make broad sweeping statements about a lot of things. Sorry not everything fits into your neat little categories. Those game cams you have so much faith in may have factory camo but they aren't hidden cameras by their own description in those studies. To anything with any night vision capabilities factory camo doesn't cut it. The cam looks like a black box hanging on a tree. It doesn't belong. They even cut the branches away to reduce false trips. As long as you continue to lump BF into your simply another animal category, I agree with you. There is no possible way it could exist. There, we agree on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I think proponents are forgetting that Bigfoot would have a life. They wouldn't just spend their entire existence hiding from all of these cameras. Bigfoot would be finding water, hunting, foraging, finding shelter, looking for love, fighting, migrating, and hiding their poop, all the while avoiding every single game camera. That has to be a major inconvenience impeding their survival and daily life. Yet none have ever messed up and got caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) Norse, given the low resolution in that game cam pic, how can you be so sure that whatever it is, is even furry? I couldn't say that for certain. For the record, I am not suggesting that Mr.Eichler was trying to hoax. Edited October 24, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 24, 2015 Author Share Posted October 24, 2015 I do know better. Your biggest problem you equate bigfoot with coyotes, big assumption on your part. No, we would not want to do that... It is proven that coyotes avoid camera traps. Do you think they know what one is? The only difference between BF and coyotes is that they can spot them before being triggered or watch them trigger on other animals. "Wolves are not one of the large animal species they have pictures of. I know wolves have been present in that area the same way I know something like BF is also present in the area." http://www.cascadesconnectivity.org/cccp-helps-confirm-a-new-wolf-pack-in-central-washington/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts