Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest RightBoot

Answers To A Question?

53 posts in this topic

I would say this is not true. FWS biologist/wildlife personnel referenced in bear studies in particular that animals including bear can smell specific compounds in the petrochemicals and/or plasticisers used in the construction of gamecam casings and internal/external components (this would include cabling). Obviously this off-gassing and detection of smell is not a temporary issue known only to "new" cameras. I (and probably many others) have specific experiences with bear chewed gamecams....many use the steel security casings as a result. If bears can do it I would say it is not a huge leap to say BF can do it. I believe it was Larry Batson that had more specific references or William Dranginis....don't have the easy references myself. As a side bar the ultrasonic frequencies emitted (also investigated by Dranginis and others) from these same devices also are dead give-aways....actually any reference to IR sensitivities is probably further off the mark IMHO.

To stay on specific topic with the OP, sportsmen are by and large lazy (yes, I said that), they tend to hang gamecams on the closest most obvious looking tree trunk, it is in no way naturalistic. People like Derek Randles in the Oly. Proj. have refined the ability to camouflage and lower detection rates and still notice classic fails as their cameras are detected from what I have read of their successes and failures on this very forum.

Descenting (or cover scenting), camouflage, burial in embankments and original placements such as in rock outcrops, hollow tree trunks, under logs, in hollow logs, etc. is one way to look at it. BF are not elk (well.....too some.... :P ) Staking out springs, spring creeks in remote areas would be a likely target but manipulations on site out of the sight of others would be paramount and about the only way that is going to be done is if there is some form of diversion going on to divide attentions so the intruders' set-up is not the focus.

I think there is something to the Ultrasonic Frequencies Bipedalist referred to. That or some other EMF would seem to be detectable. A friend of mine says his ability to get video (blurry and inconclusive as it is) increased after he copper shielded his camcorder to minimize the EMF signature.

I don't know how bats hear, or how bees see. I doubt anyone "knows" how a bigfoot's senses operate compared to ours.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, emf would be a consideration too.....and shielding I would think would help with the gamecams as well as camcorders......too bad they don't come pre-constructed with that but I believe the tendency is to keep cost and complexity down. I'm not sure how easily steel mesh or copper mesh could be included in such casings without being glued or stuck on the interior/exterior surfaces but it would certainly be something to think about an embedded shield within the housing somehow.

Some members here have experience with retrofitting coverage/shields and it is not a pretty picture sometimes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I wondering about all this is me & a million other Americans have been watching the new "Bigfoot" show, and what i see these guys doing just seems silly to me. If a Sasquatch can somehow "Sense" a trailcam and avoid it, what do they hope to gain by running around in the woods, with night vision goggles, and thermal imaging cameras. I would think its a hell of alot easier to sense an bunch of people running around in your backyard than it would one little plastic box...Jmho. I didnt know if this was accepted practice in the field of Bigfoot investagating or just high drama for television.

Please do not take what you see on the TV show and think this is really what happens in real field research... This is all hyped up for ratings and really belongs right where it is at, in the magical land of the silver screen...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not take what you see on the TV show and think this is really what happens in real field research... This is all hyped up for ratings and really belongs right where it is at, in the magical land of the silver screen...

Thanks for your reply. Thats basically what I was wondering. I see these guys and think to myself, Now I see why bigfoot hunters arent taken very seriously. I figured there had to be a better way to go about things. And I was courious as to what the rest of yall did when you were out in the field.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, but dogs are bred specifically by man for certain qualities. Also, most trail cams are placed on game trails to take pics of prey species (deer for example), and those are areas that other predators (coyotes, wolves, bears, cougars) are likely to check out, and thus get photographed. We suspect BF preys on deer, but we may be wrong. Or, if they do prey on deer, they may not follow them down game trails, but may ambush at water holes, etc. Who knows?

Sorry, I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to allude to in some of these statements. However, not all trail-cams are actually placed on known game trails. Sometimes people place them in areas trying to find a game trail. Other people simply have them out there. For example this one. In that thread it was stated there are about 2.5 million trail-cams being used in North America. That is quite a lot.

Also, creatures that are not molested can get used to objects and scents. Deer will feed in my back yard, because they expect human scent there. However, those same deer will flee if they smell me in the woods, because my scent is out of place there. However, if I start habituating a place in the woods without molesting them, over time my scent will not be alarming to them in that particular area.

Well, based on this we have to assume a couple of things if we are talking about Bigfoot. First, the vast majority of Bigfoot over North America are being molested by humans. Second, if we are talking about trail cams in the wild we have to assume that there is enough of a scent on the cam for a creature such as Bigfoot to notice.

I am not sure what physical adaptations give animals a superior sense of smell. I know turkey vultures have the greatest sense of smell on earth (or so I have read), and they do not have an elongated snout, though I suspect, unless scent is enhanced solely in the brain, that it would be difficult to compare that of a bird to a mammal. I will have to do a bit of studying on it. Thanks for giving me some inspiration to do so!

I could argue against that. I just read that a turkey vulture can smell carrion from 3,000 feet away. It does sound impressive. However, when it has also been stated that a non-selectively breed wolf can smell prey before it can actually see it at 2 miles away and a bear can smell its lunch from 20 miles away... eh, I’m no longer impressed. Really though how far away these creatures can smell their prey is hard to tell. There doesn’t seem to be much literature in regards to how well a vulture smells. If so feel free to let me know. I will admit it is not hard for me to imagine that a turkey vulture could smell very well considering it is not really a bird of prey but more of a bird of dead meat. It would seem that a turkey vulture’s sense of smell has been adapted to detect a very precise odor, unlike a tracking dog which can recognize any number of scents and follow it for miles. I say this because it is generally believed that a turkey vulture cannot follow the scent of carrion that is more than 24 hours old, which leads me back to my original point. I find it hard to believe that any creature is going to be able to recognize the scent of a human on a trail-cam that has been left out in the wild after a few weeks.

Cologne, cheese, etc. are obvious things that we as people can smell. However, things that are not obvious to us, and in fact things that we may not detect at all, stand out as much as cheap bad cologne to animals. When you handle and open the case of your trailcam, it takes in all of the scents of your camp, car, or home (wherever you happen to be). Scent molecules float around in the air, and we become acclimated to them, and don't notice them as much, many times.

Agreed. However, I would like to retract a statement I made a while ago. Even if someone left a piece of cheese inside one of their trail-cams along with the memory card it is highly unlike any creature would smell it. Most trail cams, unless you got one of those really cheap ones, are designed to be water proof. Believe it or not that little piece of rubber around the edge when you close that trail-cam is enough to prevent water molecules floating around in the air from accumulating inside the box so that your battery and memory card doesn’t corrode. Now, if your trail-cam is able to keep water molecules from entering, it’s also going to be good enough to prevent scent molecules from exiting.

Many natives and indigenous people who are still hunter/gatherers and whose senses have not been dulled by constant exposure all the deafening sensual assaults of modern society are still to this day able to hear, see, and smell much more than we can even dream of in the wild. I have a reasonably good sense of smell (not like an animal, obviously). I cannot stand to be around perfume or chemical smell, as they trigger migraines and nose bleeds. I can smell larger snakes and some deer (mostly bucks due to their glands in fall) if they are close enough. I am confident any animal can detect infinitesimally more than any human.

Ah, again we can agree. Sure, there are probably some indigenous hunters out there that have some well keened senses. However, don’t sell those city slickers out. Most wine tasters have excellent sense of smell. They have to because it’s part of their job. Tasting depends very much on smell. I would assume the majority of the world's best chefs also have an excellent sense of smell.

Of course, I could very well be wrong, and please know that I do understand that. I'm not bull-headed at all about my theories about BF. No one knows really until it can be studied, and it may well not even exist. I am optimistically skeptical, in that I think there is a probability that they could exist, I would like them to exist, and I don't reject at all that they may, to the extent that I read a good bit bit about them and intend to make some trips to explore several promising regions for evidence. I am skeptical to the point that I scrutinize all of the evidence to rule out every possible known creature, human causes, natural causes, and potential hoaxes before I ascribe something to BF, and though I would like BF to exist, my world will not fall apart if it does not exist. I will merely have met some wonderful folks, read some great stories, and explored some beautiful country!

From the comments that are being made it seems like we are getting a little off track. You say you are skeptical and that you scrutinize the evidence. I would also say that the in that first post of yours I commented on you seemed very logical. What I am trying to do here is simply understand a better picture of this creature known as Bigfoot based off your own logic.

In your post you stated that Bigfoot could possibly smell human scent on trail-cams and is the reason why we may not be getting a picture of the creature despite the millions of trail-cams out there.

I simply argued that based on your understanding that specialized abilities are not something which is simply bestowed on a creature like Green Lantern’s power ring, instead it is due to specialized anatomical structures, that if a dog such as a bloodhound that has been selectively breed for its sense of smell cannot detect human scent that has been left out in the open for more than 2 weeks neither can Bigfoot.

I’ll admit by making such a comment I have come to assume some things. Based on the prevailing theories on this board Bigfoot is some type of primate. It walks somewhat like a man and morphologically has similar features to that of other primates. I am sort of following the phrase “if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it’s a duckâ€.

You’ve stated that some indigenous people still living in the wild have some amazing senses. However, I argue that even if you gathered up the more than 6 billion humans on this planet and all the other known primates in the world you will not find one that even comes to close being able to smell as well as a German Shepherd. The reason is simple primates are not anatomically designed that way.

So again, I’ll state that if a dog such as a German Shepherd (which personally I believe has one of the most astute senses of smell in the world) cannot smell something, then neither can Bigfoot. I am assuming of course Bigfoot is some type of primate.

I will tell you that before I came to this board, as far as I was concerned Bigfoot was simply large, hairy, and stood on 2 feet. Now there are well-known hairy primates that walk around on 2 feet every day. However, there are also other well-known hairy animals that are not primates but still walk on 2 feet, for example the kangaroo. Personally I am not trying to say Bigfoot is a primate. It could be related to Chewbacca for all I know.

Could have some other class of creature developed a sense of smell that is as good better than a dog? Maybe. After all, you claim turkey vultures to have the best nose in the world. (Which, I personally doubt.) Though, one may even argue that sharks have the better sense of smell over the two.

When having a discussion over the characteristics over Bigfoot usually many different theories are thrown in. As a result there are a lot of contradicting statements being made. It would simply be wrong of me to assume that you believe Bigfoot is a primate as others have on this board.

So, in your opinion I would like to ask you three separate questions purely out of an attempt for some sort of logical speculation:

1) Do you believe that a primate can smell better than a German Shepherd?

2) Do you believe Bigfoot can smell better than a German Shepherd?

3) Do you believe Bigfoot is a primate?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this is not true. FWS biologist/wildlife personnel referenced in bear studies in particular that animals including bear can smell specific compounds in the petrochemicals and/or plasticisers used in the construction of gamecam casings and internal/external components (this would include cabling). Obviously this off-gassing and detection of smell is not a temporary issue known only to "new" cameras. I (and probably many others) have specific experiences with bear chewed gamecams....many use the steel security casings as a result. If bears can do it I would say it is not a huge leap to say BF can do it. I believe it was Larry Batson that had more specific references or William Dranginis....don't have the easy references myself. As a side bar the ultrasonic frequencies emitted (also investigated by Dranginis and others) from these same devices also are dead give-aways....actually any reference to IR sensitivities is probably further off the mark IMHO.

Bipedalist, we seem to be talking about different things. I was commenting on a human scent radiating from inside the trail-cam to the outside. I am assuming that you are talking about the plastic in which the trail-cam is made. Never the less, let's discuss that.

It appears when bears catch this scent they are not deterred by it. Instead, bears are chewing down on them. It is obvious that bears are not attracted to all trail-cams. Not all trail-cams are made out of the same materials and I am sure a number of different plastic polymers being used by the different companies that make trail-cams.

I'm assuming that you are implying that when Bigfoot comes across a trail-cam it's the smell of the plastic that tells it to stay away instead of chowing down like in your example of the bears.

So, I am curious as to why do you think this smell would deter Bigfoot? Also, do you believe that this smell keeps Bigfoot away from all trail-cams despite not all of them being made from the same materials?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conditioned responses cause animals to associate certain things to certain outcomes. Plastics are not my field. I would imagine standard impact-resistant plastics and smells in these devices are relatively standard. I'll leave it to the chemists to hypothesize. To bears the smell might be "sweet", to BF it may be the combination of human smell and plastic which is the conditioned response. I"m sort of glad BF doesn't chew on plastic....or does he just not plastic game cams? Something certainly attempted to take a bite out of one of my dropped and lost digital recorders before it was moved and returned to an obvious location in deep woods. Obvious eyetooth mark....the recorder was still operable so it was not totally trashed. Why something would mess with low powered digital sound recorders and not with game cams is not known. On the other hand their are claims that BF may have messed with some game cams and may have even left hair or saliva in doing so.....but the evidence isn't in. I believe the Olympic Project has had some experience with game cams being tampered with.

As to human smells on game cams. If you are not naturalizing them in dirt/leaves or outside your home storage environment you're probably making a mistake. I think cover scents or descenting might help some. If you plant a gamecam in the woods after it's been in your residence/living environment for some period of time....I would think those smells are going to overwhelm plastic in the first place. At least for the immediate period of time in calm weather. If you are leaving the cams out for months at a time it may be a moot point....I know that personally I don't leave them out but for days/weeks at most....so it such cases I am more careful when I use them.

Ultimately it's going to be an EyeGotcha type system (Dranginis) that combines underground electronics with cameras that will break this case for visuals....I doubt it will be the standard trip and click game cam so ultimately the human smell removal and visual cover with setup is going to be pretty important I think. In the end the dna will hopefully document them first to help spur further naturalistic and ecological investigations that will lead to better technology being deployed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conditioned responses cause animals to associate certain things to certain outcomes. Plastics are not my field. I would imagine standard impact-resistant plastics and smells in these devices are relatively standard. I'll leave it to the chemists to hypothesize. To bears the smell might be "sweet", to BF it may be the combination of human smell and plastic which is the conditioned response.

I know for a fact that some plastics smell differently than others, simply because I have smelled the difference in some. :lol: If however, most of these plastics used by trail-cam companies do share a common element that my nose does not detect that is quite possible. So, let’s assume a bigfoot smelled the scent of a human and the scent from the plastic of this trail-cam at the same time and as you have said developed a conditioned response to stay away from all trail-cams. What if there was another bigfoot who did not pass by a trail-cam before the human scent dissipated and it is now no longer there. What would be its condition response to stay away from a trail-cam then? I am assuming of course that there is more than one creature.

As to human smells on game cams. If you are not naturalizing them in dirt/leaves or outside your home storage environment you're probably making a mistake. I think cover scents or descenting might help some. If you plant a gamecam in the woods after it's been in your residence/living environment for some period of time....I would think those smells are going to overwhelm plastic in the first place. At least for the immediate period of time in calm weather. If you are leaving the cams out for months at a time it may be a moot point....I know that personally I don't leave them out but for days/weeks at most....so it such cases I am more careful when I use them.

Yes, that is what I’ve been saying in my discussion with Surveyor. Unless of course you believe that Bigfoot can actually smell better than say a trained rescue dog.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know for a fact that some plastics smell differently than others, simply because I have smelled the difference in some. :lol:

Well that settles it doesn't it, you win :blink:

Unless of course you believe that Bigfoot can actually smell better than say a trained rescue dog.

My assumption is that they do not hunt on sight alone.....perhaps some of the research ethologists in the Paulides group already have that documented in their journals. Why wouldn't they have olfaction as good as any other wild animal and why couldn't it rival that of a trained rescue dog?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that settles it doesn't it, you win :blink:

:( I get the feeling you are not even willing to play along.

What did I win? I didn't even argue a point. :lol: I simply agreed with you and asked a questioned. Did you read pass that first sentence?

My assumption is that they do not hunt on sight alone.....perhaps some of the research ethologists in the Paulides group already have that documented in their journals. Why wouldn't they have olfaction as good as any other wild animal and why couldn't it rival that of a trained rescue dog?

I believe I have already answered this question to some degree in my conversation with Surveyor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was taught by my father to boil new traps in a mixture of water and cedar boughs if they were going to be used for wolves or coyotes. Then one only handled them with traditionally prepared gloves (tanned with tallow and brains). All other critters - no boiling needed.

Bears just need to see that something is different and they will go poke their nose in it and try to pull it apart. That's because they are opportunistic feeders and look at anything new as either a possible food or possibly containing food.

Also - bears do seem to love the smell of hydrocarbons. Plastic pipe is a great chew toy. So are plastic fuel and oil cans. Some bears can play for hours with a barrel of diesel out in the bush.

Bears have an awesome sense of smell. I would put it on par with that of the wolf and coyote - but that is my opinion only.

I have seen both wolves and bears "teach" their offspring about traps and poisoned carcasses. I can only assume that they or an ancestor have been negatively impacted by some such before and survived/escaped to pass the knowledge on.

BTW - Plastics do not all smell the same because not all plastics are the same. ;)

Edited by rockinkt
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was taught by my father to boil new traps in a mixture of water and cedar boughs if they were going to be used for wolves or coyotes. Then one only handled them with traditionally prepared gloves (tanned with tallow and brains). All other critters - no boiling needed.

Wolves are different. They are even more different than other canines.

Their sense of smell is even beyond our imagination. They read our body language better than other humans.

I've had intimate moments with wolves. Wild wolves. Several times. I consider those moments among my most special in life, but in reality, I've had similar moments with our household dogs.

As far as I'm concerned, canines are at the threshold of "creation":

I have to say that orcas and porpoises are like canines. They are in a class above other creatures. They are social, pack mammals.

Had a couple pods of Dall's porpoises hanging around us for a week or so.

It was darned good company. They made my boat look like flotsam.

Bears just need to see that something is different and they will go poke their nose in it and try to pull it apart. That's because they are opportunistic feeders and look at anything new as either a possible food or possibly containing food.

Also - bears do seem to love the smell of hydrocarbons. Plastic pipe is a great chew toy. So are plastic fuel and oil cans. Some bears can play for hours with a barrel of diesel out in the bush.

I don't know if it's the smell of the hydrocarbons or if it's just the material that they can crush/eat/chew/bounce that's the attractant.

But it's clear; inflatable boats and ATV seats are irresistable...............

Bears have an awesome sense of smell. I would put it on par with that of the wolf and coyote - but that is my opinion only.

There's a thesis for a biology graduate: which is superior?

The sense of smell of a bear, or that of a canine?

My bet?:

The bear's is better.

I have seen both wolves and bears "teach" their offspring about traps and poisoned carcasses. I can only assume that they or an ancestor have been negatively impacted by some such before and survived/escaped to pass the knowledge on.

"Passing the knowledge on" is the key.

It's difficult to say that animals don't do that. Any trapper can attest to the fact that furbearers do it.

Edited by Jodie
edited out the religious reference
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe I have already answered this question to some degree in my conversation with Surveyor.

Yes, I detect a pattern.....rhetorically. Anyhoo, rockinkt and Huntster have satisfactorily and ably (IMHO) addressed some of the olfaction theories. I agree with Huntster's hunch on canine vs ursine contest as going to the bear. Based on the schnazola (sp/) I've seen on some of them they are a smelling machine (esp. polar bears).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I detect a pattern.....rhetorically. Anyhoo, rockinkt and Huntster have satisfactorily and ably (IMHO) addressed some of the olfaction theories. I agree with Huntster's hunch on canine vs ursine contest as going to the bear. Based on the schnazola (sp/) I've seen on some of them they are a smelling machine (esp. polar bears).

Hmm, I would have to say I detect a pattern here as well....

As for canine vs ursine it's a tough choice. It's basically a toss up to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to allude to in some of these statements. What statements in particular are confusing to you?However, not all trail-cams are actually placed on known game trails. You are correct, and I said most are, not all.Sometimes people place them in areas trying to find a game trail.I was referring to hunters who place trail cameras out, not bigfoot enthusiasts. Certainly the majority of people who place such cameras out are hunters, and the cameras are primarily marketed toward them. Hunters typically locate game trails, food sources, etc., and then place cameras on them. I personally have never known anyone who has randomly placed one in the woods hoping to find a game trail, as that approach is not likely to work, though a very inexperienced hunter might try it. Other people simply have them out there. For example this one. In that thread it was stated there are about 2.5 million trail-cams being used in North America. That is quite a lot. I do not know how many trail cams are in use, and I don't know if it is possible to know. It is certainly possible to know how many have been sold. I am sure there are lots of them in use. I have six, and did not place any of them out this year, as I did not hunt. As Bipedalist said, most hunters are indeed lazy and do not go far off the beaten path.

Well, based on this we have to assume a couple of things if we are talking about Bigfoot. First, the vast majority of Bigfoot over North America are being molested by humans. Second, if we are talking about trail cams in the wild we have to assume that there is enough of a scent on the cam for a creature such as Bigfoot to notice.

I could argue against that. I just read that a turkey vulture can smell carrion from 3,000 feet away. It does sound impressive. However, when it has also been stated that a non-selectively breed wolf can smell prey before it can actually see it at 2 miles away and a bear can smell its lunch from 20 miles away... eh, I’m no longer impressed. Really though how far away these creatures can smell their prey is hard to tell. There doesn’t seem to be much literature in regards to how well a vulture smells. If so feel free to let me know. I will admit it is not hard for me to imagine that a turkey vulture could smell very well considering it is not really a bird of prey but more of a bird of dead meat. It would seem that a turkey vulture’s sense of smell has been adapted to detect a very precise odor, unlike a tracking dog which can recognize any number of scents and follow it for miles. I say this because it is generally believed that a turkey vulture cannot follow the scent of carrion that is more than 24 hours old, which leads me back to my original point. I find it hard to believe that any creature is going to be able to recognize the scent of a human on a trail-cam that has been left out in the wild after a few weeks. I said, in post #18 : "Also, yes I believe animals can pick up human and foreign odors from trail cams and other objects that have been left in the woods for a week or two." Somehow that got stretch into "a few weeks". Also, I never said a BF could scent it that long. I did, however, give a possible alternative explanation immediately after the above quote: "You also have to consider this - the animals (BF in this case) who may have scented the camera trap during the first few days it was in the woods are now aware of its location and may have a tendency to change their travel pattern to avoid it, if they are offended by the odors or if they recognize them as threatening, etc. Also, if other species, such as deer, etc. change their travel pattern to avoid the camera, other species, including predatory ones (BF?) may change theirs to follow." Several times in my posts, though, I said I might be wrong, all of us might be wrong, we don't really know, etc., or statements similar to those.

Agreed. However, I would like to retract a statement I made a while ago. Even if someone left a piece of cheese inside one of their trail-cams along with the memory card it is highly unlike any creature would smell it. Most trail cams, unless you got one of those really cheap ones, are designed to be water proof. Believe it or not that little piece of rubber around the edge when you close that trail-cam is enough to prevent water molecules floating around in the air from accumulating inside the box so that your battery and memory card doesn’t corrode. Now, if your trail-cam is able to keep water molecules from entering, it’s also going to be good enough to prevent scent molecules from exiting.

Ah, again we can agree. Sure, there are probably some indigenous hunters out there that have some well keened senses. However, don’t sell those city slickers out. Most wine tasters have excellent sense of smell. They have to because it’s part of their job. Tasting depends very much on smell. I would assume the majority of the world's best chefs also have an excellent sense of smell.

From the comments that are being made it seems like we are getting a little off track. You say you are skeptical and that you scrutinize the evidence. I would also say that the in that first post of yours I commented on you seemed very logical. What I am trying to do here is simply understand a better picture of this creature known as Bigfoot based off your own logic.

In your post you stated that Bigfoot could possibly smell human scent on trail-cams and is the reason why we may not be getting a picture of the creature despite the millions of trail-cams out there. I didn't state that is the reason we may not be getting a pic of the creature despite the number of trail cams out there. I stated: "The greatest potential alarm in relation to the trail cams that most people never consider..." I stated that because I had read several other things people have considered on this forum and others, such as subsonic electrical sounds, not camouflaging the cameras well enough (or not camouflaging them at all), not placing them in in truly remote areas, etc. However, I had never read where anyone had considered potential human scent contamination, hence my comment.

I simply argued that based on your understanding that specialized abilities are not something which is simply bestowed on a creature like Green Lantern’s power ring, instead it is due to specialized anatomical structures, that if a dog such as a bloodhound that has been selectively breed for its sense of smell cannot detect human scent that has been left out in the open for more than 2 weeks neither can Bigfoot. Again, you exaggerate. I have not said that bigfoot or anything else could detect human scent on or emanating from a trail camera after 2 weeks.

I’ll admit by making such a comment I have come to assume some things. Based on the prevailing theories on this board Bigfoot is some type of primate. It walks somewhat like a man and morphologically has similar features to that of other primates. I am sort of following the phrase “if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it’s a duckâ€.

You’ve stated that some indigenous people still living in the wild have some amazing senses. However, I argue that even if you gathered up the more than 6 billion humans on this planet and all the other known primates in the world you will not find one that even comes to close being able to smell as well as a German Shepherd. The reason is simple primates are not anatomically designed that way.

So again, I’ll state that if a dog such as a German Shepherd (which personally I believe has one of the most astute senses of smell in the world) cannot smell something, then neither can Bigfoot. I am assuming of course Bigfoot is some type of primate. Please keep in mind that I have not stated that BF's ability to smell is on par with a dog. I DID say that I believe that they would be able to detect human scent on trail cameras and the site around it. The statements I made in regard to dogs, bears, etc. are as follows (from post #18, again):

"I don't know what the nose of a BF looks like. Matt Moneymaker claims it is black like a dog's. If that is so, it is reasonable to think it (BF's nose) would have similar olfactory properties to the noses of similar animals (dogs, bear, dear, etc.). MM may very well be wrong. Heck, I may very well be wrong, lol. We all might be wrong and the true answer is really behind Door Number 3! But it is fun to speculate with intelligent dialogue and theories."

Please note the I don't know, the several may be wrong statements, and that the source of the black nose info was not me, but another BF researcher who claims to have seen one (I have not).

I will tell you that before I came to this board, as far as I was concerned Bigfoot was simply large, hairy, and stood on 2 feet. Now there are well-known hairy primates that walk around on 2 feet every day. However, there are also other well-known hairy animals that are not primates but still walk on 2 feet, for example the kangaroo. Personally I am not trying to say Bigfoot is a primate. It could be related to Chewbacca for all I know.

Could have some other class of creature developed a sense of smell that is as good better than a dog? Maybe. After all, you claim turkey vultures to have the best nose in the world.I could be wrong about the turkey vulture. It has been more than 15 years since I've read what I'm recalling, and a precursory internet search this morning seems to point out bears as the olfactory kings of terrestrial earth. (Which, I personally doubt.) Though, one may even argue that sharks have the better sense of smell over the two.

When having a discussion over the characteristics over Bigfoot usually many different theories are thrown in. As a result there are a lot of contradicting statements being made. It would simply be wrong of me to assume that you believe Bigfoot is a primate as others have on this board.

So, in your opinion I would like to ask you three separate questions purely out of an attempt for some sort of logical speculation:

1) Do you believe that a primate can smell better than a German Shepherd? I do not know the olfactory capabilities of all primates. Certainly I suppose it might be possible if it benefited them. However, as I said in my last post, man has bred dogs for specific purposes over thousands of years, and many species have been bred specifically for their sense of smell. It would be difficult for many animals to compete with that, but not impossible.

2) Do you believe Bigfoot can smell better than a German Shepherd? I doubt it, but again, I do not know. It certainly depends on how it uses its senses to hunt or gather food or avoid danger.

3) Do you believe Bigfoot is a primate? I answered that in post #18 already, but I will say again that I do not know. I lean somewhat in that direction if I am pressed because of the descriptions in reports, but that is as far as I will go at this point.

Here is a question you asked me earlier, and I have just now had the opportunity to do a little reading on the subject:

"Surveyor, I'm under the impression that you realize animals that appear to have particular "amazing" ability which sets them apart from other animals usually have specialized morphological features which allow them to do so. I am also under the impression that the Bigfoot also has similar morphological features to that of humans or chimps when it comes to its face. Knowing that do you think Bigfoot would have a sense of smell similar to that of a human and chimp or to that of a creature with a long muzzle such as a German Shepherd?"

As far as olfactory ability, one of the things vertebrates sense smells by are olfactory sensory neurons in the olfactory epithelium. The larger the olfactory epithelium comparatively, the greater the sensitivity to smell. That is not nearly the only thing that determines a powerful sense of smell, though. The olfactory bulb in the brain also contributes significantly to the ability to detect and manage the sense of smell. In bears, the olfactory bulb is roughly 5 times the size of that in humans. Also, the olfactory abilities of humans and other primates, such as chimps and gorillas, are NOT equal. Humans have the least olfactory senses of any known primate, and we have fewer odor receptor genes than any other primate or mammal. Also, there are some primates who have additional glands on their heads that aid in the olfactory process (gathering and processing scent molecules).

It has been widely documented by scientists and wildlife biologists that most mammals communicate by scents and pheromones in addition to sounds and body language.

What does all this mean? It seems to me to mean that whether BF is a primate or not, there is sufficient biological reasoning to believe that it likely possesses much greater olfactory abilities than humans, regardless if the apparent external facial structure appears similar. Outside of that, we can simply agree to disagree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0