Leaderboard

Having looked at aerial surveillance from a practical and experimental standpoint, I do not have the same confidence that it would be successful. In other words, I have put myself in an airplane with various cameral setups and run experiments. Even with a very long lens, you have to fly very low to get photographs with sufficient detail to be of any worth. The PNW forest canopy is your enemy. Most areas have nearly continuous canopy hiding the ground and anything on it, from being seen from the air. The best aerial views were obtained imagining down at about a 45 degree angle. At least that way, you have a chance to see the ground and what might be moving on it. FLIR cannot see through tree foliage any better than visible light. And what you get, even with expensive FLIR systems, is poor resolution. So poor that you could not tell the difference between a human and a BF with most images. You loose scale or size determination from aerial photographs. Night drone work is now specifically prohibited by FAA regulation. A hydrogen drone would be very dangerous. The tiniest leak and any kind of spark and you have an explosion and set the forest on fire. Explain that to the Forest Service. Lets say that you successfully image a BF from the air. Find a sufficiently remote place where BF is caught out in the open. I believe I have seen one from the air on a ridge line so I think it possible. Even with a HD image what do you have? A picture, no way to scale the image, and probably taken from such a distance that details such as hair or whatever cannot really be resolved. Hoax, man in a costume, etc will all be on the table with no way to get supporting evidence like footprints etc. Personally I think lower tech, habituation situations, or sweeps through active areas are more likely to result in meaningful contact evidence which might get main stream science interested. One more blurry picture taken from the air will not do much of anything to interest science.

Here's some food for thought. It's right to doubt that the government could protect bigfoot. But you know what can be controlled and limited in many way... Us!

ShadowBorn, I agree with you that science may be afraid of BF. It goes against most anthropologists world view. However, I don't agree that there is no more evidence to be had. That is not a good mindset to fall into. It would result in missing what's around us.

I don't understand how you can say that yet promote official discovery. They are people, whether human or not, or we'd have found them already. Considering our track record with the cultures of Native American cultures here and other indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world, how can you possibly rationalize promoting discovery? That's like putting a pedophile in charge of the day care center. I'm completely aghast at the level of obliviousness and denial necessary in that position. MIB Oh really? How has the reintroduction of the timber wolf gone in the west? That is entirely irrelevant to management of an indigenous people. Bigfoot are not wildlife, they are people whether Homo sapiens or not. Management will certainly not fall under USF&WS, it will most likely fall under the Bureau of Indian Affairs who have overseen the destruction of every native culture they've been in charge of managing so far. MIB

Its hard to do research with the relatively sparse physical evidence. I.e. limited hair samples, foot print casts, etc. Anything beyond analyzing those items is just theoretical. It's hard to research something when you don't know what it is or anything definite about it. I don't consider hunting for bigfoot research, and that is ongoing in various degrees all over the place.

Peter Byrne got $5 million to search for bigfoot.