wiiawiwb

Camo - who uses it and which pattern?

46 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Drew said:

Do you think a beast that can detect trail cams, and sneak up on people without failing ever, can be tricked by camo?

 

I think Camo is useless for Bigfoot, it is simply to enhance the Woods and Wildmen game that the Bigfooters are playing.

 

It makes them feel more outdoorsy and hunterish.

 

 

 

I deeply value the opinion of bigfoot advocates especially those who spend time in the field.  I also deeply value those who have something productive to add.

 

You're on ignore.

Edited by wiiawiwb
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2018 at 6:01 AM, wiiawiwb said:

I'm curious to find out what others are doing when you're out in the field. Do you wear camo or street clothes? If you wear camo, which pattern is it?

 

I don't have much use for camo.   The areas I spend the most time have so much variety so close together it is hard to find a single pattern that fits all of them.   My general "uniform" is just drab colored tee shirts, flannel, jeans, and one of several dull green jackets I own.   The only camo things I wear much are my hat and day pack, not because I wanted camo, but because what I wanted only came in camo.

 

I have no delusions of sneaking up on them or hiding myself from them.   Camo ... if you're thinking about hiding from bigfoot ... is worse than silly, it's naive.   You have to manage smell, motion, and also manage how the other animals around you react to you because disturbing them is a dead giveaway. 

 

MIB

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2018 at 0:13 PM, wiiawiwb said:

Norse...how do you like Sitka's stuff? I tried the Ascent pants and they fit and felt very comfortable. 

 

Which Sitka Optifade pattern did you choose? I'm considering the Subalpine.

 

What top works for the warm weather? The Ascent Shirt looks pretty sweet but very pricey.

 

I've always been partial to ASAT and have their Pro Vanish 3D leafy suit.  Pants drive my decision and I'm considering the ASAT Knarr, Sitka Ascent (Subalpine) and First Lite Corrugate (Cipher).  Any experience with these?

 

Sitka I think its over priced and not the best quality. I find that hunter camo is not as good of quality as military grade camo. They do not make mine anymore it was the gray/green called elevated forest i think. The tiny zipper broke on my pants and stuck and I literally ripped them trying to get them over my boot. I should have taken my boots off but didnt want wet socks. And the coat is alright but the same chinsey zippers and the hood is snapped in with small snaps and will get pulled off in brush. 

 

I think its light weight sheep hunter/backpacker stuff that is designed to last maybe one season. Sheep hunts = Big money.

 

I’m switching to Kryptek Highlander which is the mix of arid and greenzone. They also make Nomad/Arid and Mandrake/greenzone. Ive ordered some Pencott camo too to look at, its British. Kryptek seems popular as unofficial camo within military circles. Helikon supports it as well as UR tactical. Oh and Kifaru.

 

Its also available as hunting gear as well which makes me leery of that stuff.

 

I have not tried asat, nor first lite.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wear camo (mostly Realtree) because It's comfortable, and because I don't want to make a bunch of my other clothes all filthy dirty. I wear my camo hiking, fishing, camping ... heck, any time I'm out in the woods, to be honest. I've found that most camo clothing is not really designed to hide you (because most of the patterns are predictable), but to be comfortable and durable. Jeans are made of heavy material. So are items like cargo pants. These can get very heavy and uncomfortable when wet, or dirty. When camping or looking for Sasquatch, most of us tend to wear the same thing for at least a couple of days. If you're going to be crawling through bushes, dirt, and mud, you want clothes that you can just brush off when they get dirty, or will dry relatively quickly. Jeans don't fit that profile. If I wanted to hide from other humans, I'd fall back on my military training, break out my cadpat combats, and camstick, and use twigs and branches to break up my outline. As for trying to hide from Sasquatch ... don't even bother.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually come to think of it. Military surplus ECWCS is the toughest stuff I have come across. The only downside is its noisy. The material makes a swishing noise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think most people hear, are greatly underrating the value of camo. In certain scenarios in can be quite valuable. In a scenario where you are sitting and observing, camo can play a vital role. One of the more common groups of people who have seen bigfoot are bowhunters, who are generally decked out head to toe in camo.

Edited by BossSquatch
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have misconceptions that I am going to sneak up on a sasquatch. I fully expect to be seen far in advance if I am going to area where it is. Having said that, I am more interested in going to an area to silently sit and wait for it to pass through. Good strategy, or bad, it can only work if I am in effective camo and as scent free as possible.  None of knows what its vision capabilities are so the camo thing might be a complete waste to time. I'm willing to take that chance.

 

In some respects, I hope the camo outfit would trigger a negative response from it. I'd rather get to see an angry sasquatch once than never get to see one at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought this was a good example to show why we probably will walk right by a bigfoot and never even see it if it doesn't want us to. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BossSquatch said:

I think most people hear, are greatly underrating the value of camo. In certain scenarios in can be quite valuable. In a scenario where you are sitting and observing, camo can play a vital role. One of the more common groups of people who have seen bigfoot are bowhunters, who are generally decked out head to toe in camo.

 

I think camo is very effective.

 

People just use it wrong. They stop by McDonalds and eat a cheeseburger on the way out and drop ketchup on it. They walk ridgelines, make noise and talk. They wash their camo with detergent that uses brightners in it. They move around alot on two legs and dont lay quiet. Humans smell like Bigmacs, coffee, exhaust fumes, dogs, cats, shampoo and laundry detergent. They do not cover their faces or hands. They do not use cover and concealment.

 

But its all the camo’s fault right?

 

There are other problems such as road systems = man. Most people do not get far off of road systems. 

 

People suprise Bigfoot all the time. If we didnt? We would never have reports or the PGF to point to. Animals of the forest have a greater awareness than most humans. Most. Our senses are bombarded daily by neon signs, car horns, trains, jets, TVs, Iphones....a million distractions all competing for our attention. Humans cope by shutting most distractions out and only focus on the ones that matter to us. 

 

In the woods its different. You can be a sponge and soak it all in. Its a never ending game of seeking food while avoiding being eaten. What made the pine squirrel angry? What flushed the quail? The whitetail deer? A human can use the senses of other animals as well as our own.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has camo increased the likelihood of seeing a bigfoot?

 

The PGF guys weren't wearing camo.

 

The beast hangs around dumpsters in parking lots, and in rest areas, why do you think a scent of Big Macs would effect the response of a Bigfoot?

Wouldn't he be curious to see what is creating the smell and approach?

 

Bigfoot is seen by people without camo,  most reports are by regular people, not by hunters or army guys out in the woods.

 

I would say that Camo DECREASES the ability to find bigfoot by a large margin.

 

Maybe, bigfoot knows that people in Camo are prepared to destroy him, so he stays away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with much of what has been said. It comes from, I think, a general disconnect between what people assume about what it takes to encounter a BF, and what the evidence is telling us it actually takes. What it takes, we are told, is being in the right place, at the right time. That is, luck and mere chance play a far greater role in leading to an encounter than just about anything else.   The camouflage of lucky circumstances/conditions is far more important than the camo pattern you happen to wear. I would even go so far as to say, as far as I can tell,  it really doesn't matter at all what you are wearing. That this is out of the control of the typical BF hunter is not a welcome message, for those doing the hunting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Drew said:

Has camo increased the likelihood of seeing a bigfoot?

 

The PGF guys weren't wearing camo.

 

The beast hangs around dumpsters in parking lots, and in rest areas, why do you think a scent of Big Macs would effect the response of a Bigfoot?

Wouldn't he be curious to see what is creating the smell and approach?

 

Bigfoot is seen by people without camo,  most reports are by regular people, not by hunters or army guys out in the woods.

 

I would say that Camo DECREASES the ability to find bigfoot by a large margin.

 

Maybe, bigfoot knows that people in Camo are prepared to destroy him, so he stays away.

 

They were riding horses.... they absolutely were camoflauged. Their scent and their outline was completely masked. Your simply not thinkly broadly enough as to what is or is not camouflage. To you? Camouflage is just a pair of pants and shirt printed in a disruptive pattern. While that is a base its not the whole. Owning a tea spoon does not give you a tea set.

 

I do not believe all reports like Bigfoot dumpster diving in Chicago. But again you think naively. The scent of a bigmac may indeed draw in a inquisitive primate. But the scent of the big mac gives away your element of surprise. The animal may approach undetected and observe you undetected and its curiousity satisfied, leave undetected.

 

Hunters lure game...this is true enough, sometimes unwitting directly on top of themselves. Estrus scent, jelly donuts, game calls, etc. But as of yet? We have no proven method of attracting a Bigfoot. 

 

As for regular people reporting Bigfoot sightings? I would agree with you. Except that most of these sightings are while driving on roads. We humans have crisscrossed the landscape with roads. This is a real problem with documented species such as Grizzly bears, and the lack of ability to reach other breeding populations of bears. Its why the forest service gates roads so that endangered species can regain a toe hold without dodging cars. But here again if you see a Bigfoot crossing a road, its on high alert and getting out of the area. 

 

Amyhow great apes have trichromatic vision......thats a fact. If a large bipedal hairy creature known as Bigfoot is a reality in our forests? I think its safe to say its a member of the great ape family. And being bipedal it may be closer to us than our quadraped cousins. So it has trichromatic vision. So its eyes like ours zero in on bright colors. Again Camo is not the end all be all to anyone. No more than wearing a cowboy hat makes you a cowboy. But.....it is a step in the right direction. If your looking at not being observed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patterson and Gimlin may have not appeared to be humans to Patty initially, but I hardly think the horses prevented her from knowing there was a presence there to be concerned about. This is borne out by the fact she was already on the scoot when the camera came out. I am doubting there were any feral horses wandering around the vicinity so as to lull her into thinking a couple of horses at hand was nothing to be wary bout at all.  My assumption has always been Patty had reasons to be seen as she was seen, horses or not. This is not an original thought of course, and hinges on the idea she young near by, and that her exposed route was the quickest and most direct way to get to them and get them out of there.  Once again, dumb luck played much more an important role than the idea the horses somehow allowed them to see her in the open.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WSA said:

Patterson and Gimlin may have not appeared to be humans to Patty initially, but I hardly think the horses prevented her from knowing there was a presence there to be concerned about. This is borne out by the fact she was already on the scoot when the camera came out. I am doubting there were any feral horses wandering around the vicinity so as to lull her into thinking a couple of horses at hand was nothing to be wary bout at all.  My assumption has always been Patty had reasons to be seen as she was seen, horses or not. This is not an original thought of course, and hinges on the idea she young near by, and that her exposed route was the quickest and most direct way to get to them and get them out of there.  Once again, dumb luck played much more an important role than the idea the horses somehow allowed them to see her in the open.  

 

I disagree.

 

I have lots of miles on horse or mule back in the woods. Game acts totally different to me than if I was on foot....

 

I think that if Bob and Roger were on foot, assuming the film is authentic. There would be no film at all to view.

 

No need for feral horses, a quadraped hooved animal sound alike at a distance. Elk, deer, moose.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as they say, elk don't know how many legs a horse has, eh?

 

But, we are talking about a BF, after all. An animal we assume to be smarter than the average bear. No sure what quadrupeds were native to the vicinity, besides mule deer, but if we believe a BF can't tell the tread of a delicate cloven hoof and a fully loaded (and steel shod) horse, we might want to reevaluate our assessment of their capabilities. Apparently, they ain't none too bright.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites