Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/22/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I have to agree. Working with folks in the field is usually more palatable than the online scene. However, Millennials are married to their social media. It's a disturbingly disconnected way to live, but it is their way. The Millennial generation on whole has the attention span of less than that of a goldfish. That's not an insult, but the findings of more than one university study. Field studies requires patients and determination. Two qualities that the Y gen and Millennials don't have in abundance. Bigfooting and instant gratification are mutually exclusive or at least as far as the newer generations are concerned. They also have deluded themselves into believing that they can determine the "tone" of an online response and instantly feel threatened whenever their viewpoints are questioned. This is not to say that all of the newer generations are walking personifications of the movie, "Idiocracy," but more than a few. They talk to each other using pictographs and hieroglyphics for crying out loud! LOL I'm the first to admit that I'm one thin lap blanket from yelling at the kids to keep of my lawn, but when one takes into account the lack of attention span, craving for instant gratification, hypersensitivity to criticism, and over dependence on social media, it really isn't a shock to see interest wain for bigfoot. It's classical "Shiny Object Syndrome."
  2. 3 points
    Twelve step program for drinking? Good booze goes well with well grilled meats.
  3. 3 points
    Was about to come and post this, here's the source: https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/9j7frr/trail_cam_pics/ OP's friend was the owner of the game cam, and was awoken at 3 or 4 am when he received notification on his cell that the photos were taken (cell-linked game cam). The camera was attached to a tree and was knocked down before taking the pics, hence the grass in the shots. Some anatomical details people are commenting on: No big toe / all toes similar size Big toe appears slightly divergent (not sure I see that one) Mid-tarsal break lines visible Leg-foot attachment point closer to middle of foot than human Elongated heel Location was near Henryetta, OK. The back story and appearance of the foot seem to me to paint a clear picture of a juvenile bigfoot getting a little brazen messing with a game cam, knocking it down, and accidentally getting his foot caught in the process. At the very least, it'll be a nice thing to bring up when answering the "why no game cam photos??" question. edit to add: The second photo in Whistler's post was taken seconds before the photo of the foot, if that matters.
  4. 3 points
    I would like to be an Alaskan FARTer. My schedule is spotty, but for much of the thawed part of the year, I can respond quickly to a report within the railbelt and south central coast of Alaska, including fairly remote areas, and even spend a couple weeks in the field to test a report site. I would consider personally funding an air taxi or boat charter to extremely remote sites statewide. I would gladly build a top quality evidence kit at my own expense. I’m not well equipped or skilled photographically, but I sure am with regard to carcass collection. I would consider a report up to a week old as “fresh”. I would reserve the right to judge reports for worthiness before expending my money, time, and effort to follow up on them. I am willing to to discus this with other Alaskan Bigfoot website operators and Bigfoot researchers.
  5. 3 points
    I need to qualify my statement by saying that it was never directed at Nathan as I find him very refreshing and a model of behavior for younger folks many of whom I take exception with. He is clearly energetic, has well-thought-out and novel ideas (such as those with thermals), goes out on his own to do research, and is willing to participate. We need more people like him on BFF and, frankly, around the country. If I could duplicate him and sprinkle him here, there, and everywhere I would. My hat is off to him and I hope he continues to do his good work. I also sincerely hope he becomes a model for others his age. We all do better when the bar is raised.
  6. 3 points
    Gas over charcoal? BLASPHEMY!
  7. 3 points
    And among the very best ways to support the forum!!
  8. 3 points
    If we want to talk about politics and global warming, etc? Take it to the TAR PIT! This is the Bigfoot General Discussion forum. This is where we talk about BIGFOOT!
  9. 3 points
    Let's stop beating up on our youngest member please. Maybe this is the reason why we don't have more of them... They don't feel welcome.
  10. 3 points
    A bunch of old fogies trying to tell us younger folks why no young people are interested. But honestly, I don't know the answer. I find the possibility fascinating but even my closest friends think I'm a joke when the possibility of existence comes up.
  11. 3 points
    Hi Catmandoo, Yes the paper is theoretical and based on fundamental physics of a generic game camera and movements of the animals. My recollection is that the authors used the physics analogy of a particle in the box to generate the primary equations. The field test of the equations was limited, I agree, but necessary to test if they yielded reasonable estimates. I have not found any better papers in the internet addressing this question (how many cameras are required to detect an animal given its range and density). Also, I have not found any papers addressing my new question, what happens if the camera is also moving. Which is completely theoretical, since I am not proposing to have game cameras moving in the forest. I am just trying to understand if hikers and cars (who ar moving and have eyes for detection) increase or decrease the odds of detection vs. a fixed camera (given the same amount of time in the field). Key assumption here is that human eyes are as good as IR cameras for detection of movement. Thanks for your interest and please let me know if you find anything that could help me better understand this. Gigantor, My understanding is that r is the distance between the camera and animal when it was detected by the IR sensor. Below is a quote from their paper on the method used to estimate r. The variables were estimated by a series of trials in which the camera was approached by a person at varying speeds and from varying directions, recording whether and at what point the sensor was triggered. In order to estimate the detection distance, r, , the zone was crossed perpendicular to the sensor beam. I suspect that the radius of detection will depend on specific camera design given the large diversity and selections available. Nonetheless, I am more interested on the macro relationships between detection and range and density and not so much on the "constant" variables in the equation. I agree with you that r will be very different for a hiker or driver in car using a different camera or just their eyeballs. BTW, my question is completely theoretical since I don't think you could place a IR triggered game camera in a car and drive without it triggering it all the time with the car motion. My interest is more with the analogy to human eyeballs. Maybe human eyeballs are even better than IR detection given our evolutionary history to pay attention to movement in the bush?
  12. 3 points
    Two weeks elk archery hunting no luck but still a great time. Skamania County WA, right in the heart of BF country. Squirrels made some great knocks with those big fir cones. My partner ran into a big black bear that was chowing down on huckleberries. He left the area because all he was carrying was a bow. Took his revolver with him after that. I followed a cougar this morning that was tracking a deer last night. Hope he got it so he wasn't looking for something else for dinner.
  13. 2 points
    I haven’t seen this one before- I ran across this online & I thought I’d share it with y’all. It’s not the clearest image, but it’s certainly intriguing. Let me know what y’all think... Cheers! Here’s another one I believe from the same trail cam..
  14. 2 points
    Actually, it’s not them I want. It’s the money they get from us I want back for sasquatch research.
  15. 2 points
    ^^ Wouldn’t be a bad idea if somewhere on the BFF we had a list of reliable resources or references for things such as labs for testing samples or things of that nature.
  16. 2 points
    Talking strictly technology? Either we figure out how to spread out and live amongst the stars? Or we will share the same fate as the dinosaurs. Its simple and just a matter of time. It will not be easy. But neither was Magellan’s voyage or building the Pyramids or eeking out an existence in ice age Europe. Humans conquer obstacles thats what we do. And we have already put men on the moon. And have spent a year in Earth’s low orbit on a space station.
  17. 2 points
    Strangely enough, I find more and more people who have a greater than passing interest in the subject. I think that some of the more popular podcasts have really attracted casual 'fans' of the subject into developing a deeper interest into the field.
  18. 2 points
    Actually, I think that’s pretty accurate. And stay off my lawn.
  19. 2 points
    I think it's an over-generalization just like folks my age and younger say that all baby boomers are get off my lawn types who ruined the planet and we will be paying for their retirements for years to come with no benefit for us. I know a lot of POS people who are much older than myself...and I know a ton of POS people my age or younger. I think it's just easier for one generation to point to the next for all of "our" problems.
  20. 2 points
    I just have to say that as a Texan I'm disgusted by this talk of BBQ'in with anything but charcoal or wood.
  21. 2 points
    Just back from my final BWCA trip of the year. It was pretty miserable. Cold and windy except for a brief window Saturday evening when the wind died down for a few hours. Only got in a couple hours of fishing due to the wind. That is the one downside to canoe tripping, wind is the boss. The solitude is still worth making the trip. This was from the 20 minutes of sun we had. Just realized I’m finally off BFF probation, yeah to me...
  22. 2 points
    It's not just bigfooting. The 20-somethings and 30-somethings as a whole do not seem to be very interested in solo-ish outdoor things. They're way under-represented in hunting, fishing, camping, etc .. not just bigfoot. It could be driven by economics .. bigfoot, etc may not be able to compete with the financial demands of buying a house or raising a family. Many more 40+ year olds are far enough along in their careers to have some discretionary income. It will be interesting to see if the next generation of 20-somethings has more interest in outdoor stuff or not. MIB
  23. 2 points
    I suddenly realized I had pics from my caribou hunt last month. Here is the Cabelas Alaskan Guide 6-man tent I sleep in. It’s set up 55 yards from the cook tent. The cook tent is an Eskimo ice fishing tent.
  24. 2 points
    Which would make it a mobile home.
  25. 2 points
    Here is a very interesting study on firearms use during Alaskan bear attacks: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261982557_Efficacy_of_Firearms_for_Bear_Deterrence_in_Alaska I was initially surprised at the higher success rate for handguns, but after thinking about it, this is likely due to handguns being near to hand more often than long guns. The factors for firearms failure?: As one would expect, this was at the end of the study: I contest that final contention. First, all the reasons for firearm failure can equally cause spray failure with the additional factor of wind (the wind will never blow your bullet back into your face). Secondly, spray has only been around for twenty years or so, and any study conducted thus far cannot be accurately compared to a study of firearms use going back over a century. Thirdly, a 90% success rate isn’t much better than the firearms success ate so far. Finally, the single type of bear encounter in which spray shines is that of a dangerously curious bear, and I content that such a bear might as well be killed before he becomes a real problem. I’ve been “tested” by a potentially predatory bear. I had a rifle, and I should have killed him, but I didn’t because I was following the rules. Frankly, I should have just wasted him. I’m fairly confident that he was a subsequent problem bear. Granted, spraying him down might have taught him a lesson, but he gave me little opportunity to blast him with the 338 WinMag. I had zero opportunity to spray him down. Spray with rifle and sidearm? Sure.......in base camp or in the vehicle. Am I going to carry that shit around on my body? No way. The Glock is heavy and bulky enough. I’ll stick with the firearms, hunting license, and bear tags in my pocket........and, most importantly, bear awareness and caution..........
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×