Leaderboard

Gigantor, Below are my answers to your questions. I bought the FLIR BHS-XR Command unit that has a built-in video and camera. The built-in video capability is one of the reasons I bought this unit, since I wanted to avoid using an external DVR with dangling cables (as I had previously done with a 2G NV unit attached to a DVR with cables). The new unit has just one button to start video recording and is pretty easy to use. The unit looks like a binocular and is handled similarly. While I have used it hiking at night, I rather use it in a tripod either outside or inside the tent. While I like Randy’s setup a lot, I chose my option to be more portable and flexible. The unit does not have audio recording capability. That is one of its disadvantages. When I use it at night at camp, I always turn on my Tascam DR5 audio recorder to provide the audio. Last time I heard the footfalls, I looked for the potential animal tracks but found none. When I arrive at a new location, I always look for animal tracks in the creeks, ponds, meadows, and also around camp (although soil is not the best for tracks on my site). Right now, my focus is on audio and video, but if I find tracks then I will photograph/video them (I will not cast them). Location was brought to my attention by more experienced and seasoned researchers in the state as a place of interest and supposedly past experiences. I visited with doubt, and only on my 2nd and 3rd solo trip, did I begin to believe that there is a signal there. Not sure yet on how many visits it takes with no measureable results, before I move on to a new location. BTW, I agree with others (who posted above) with the statement that a thermal imager video is not going to provide good evidence for the existence of an unrecognized creature to the scientific community. For me, it is about a tool/instrument that helps me see at night and allows me to capture in photo/video what is present around me. The captured images would be mainly for my own corroboration and confirmation of an objective reality, rather than to provide evidence to anybody.

I hear there is some town in California or something that is also contesting Remer's claim, but so far no-one has really stepped forward on that so Remer must be the capitol. Not that anyone cares really but its a good excuse for a barbecue.

Hello all. The Remer Bigfoot Festival was a lot of fun. It was very small-town-carnival in flavor with families, food, a petting zoo, games, pony rides, and even a wedding (in which Bobo gave away the bride). There were also excellent witnesses in attendance, some of which had encounters and collected evidence quite recently. We filmed much of it for a future Finding Bigfoot episode. It'll be a good segment for that episode. (No, I don't know when it will be aired. I would guess in 2017, but this is just an uninformed guess.) There was no indication of bigfooter factions of any sort, but I wouldn't expect there to be. Most people who divide communities such as ours do it online, preferring to hide behind keyboards rather than coming out in person to ruin people's festivals and good times. There were nothing but smiles as far as you could see on the streets of Remer that day. If you'd like to see a bit more about what went on, you can check out this local news item below. Best, Cliff

I find this entire thread really disconcerting. I'm skeptical because based on what I've seen personally in 30+ years of wilderness experience, and online in various videos, chat forums, DNA studies, etc. we still do not - after decades of earnest searching - have any good scientific evidence for sasquattle. That does NOT mean they don't exist. Hell, I want them to exist and enjoy my time in nature thinking about the possibility and looking. But Sasquatch have not been demonstrated to exist using the most basic scientific criteria: a type specimen, DNA, or unambiguous HD video with demonstrated provenance. Worse, there are people out there hoaxing and monetizing the phenomena which muddies the waters even more. THAT is what drives scientists away, not the critter itself. Whether sasquatch exists or not is equivocal to me. It would be more fun if they did, but I don't really care one way or the other. It should not be such an emotional thing for people - I really do not understand this part of the sasquatch world. It's like a religion or something, people dived into 'believers" and "skeptics". Really? Is this third grade? It should be obvious to all that the evidence collected thus far is insufficient to prove existence. If you have seen a sasquatch up close in good conditions, then AWESOME for you. The rest of us, however, have to play different rules. In my opinion, unless you have seen one personally - under unassailably good lighting conditions - the only reasonable position is "The jury is out." This is the position of mainstream science and it is the correct position.

Incorrect as usual, Crow. Bigfoot is very worth my time. It is YOU that is not worth my time. MIB

I analyzed a few steaming piles and they kept identifying back to the same guy.

I don't think the comparison is valid. Two reasons come to mind. First, with regard to signs made by passage, not feeding, if the gorilla pictures online accurately depict typical habitat, it would be pretty difficult to move through such "cover" without damaging plants. However, this isn't the case for the cover found in most of North America. I can move fine through a conifer forest (where I've had most of my interactions), oak savannah, and most other plant communities other than some thickets of stuff I'd just go around, without leaving a visible trail. If I can, they can. Second, with regard to signs from feeding, gorillas are essentially 100% herbivore, however, according to the evidence, bigfoots are not, they are omnivores. Gorillas seem to eat pretty much leafy green stuff. Bigfoots seem not to, their plant material tends to be berries, mushrooms, tubers, and the like. There isn't much evidence suggesting the walk along munching handfuls of leaves torn off trees in a way that would create a trail that you can find. So .. interesting idea on the surface, just don't think about it very hard. If you do, why it is wrong becomes painfully obvious. MIB

P-G: Not bothered at all. They use many of the same food sources so of course they SHOULD be found in the same places. Considering them from a biological standpoint, I would be more bothered if it were otherwise. I know bears. I grew up in a bear preserve. We'd see up to a dozen a day. At certain times of year we had a lot of problems with them getting into fruit trees, garden, and trash cans as well as our boats which sometimes smelled of the fish we caught. When I was guiding with customers bears were a regular thing. I understand bear anatomy, physical proportions, size, behavior ... What I saw was no bear. Not the first, not the second, and not even the "maybe" because whatever it was, it had broad shoulders to the side of the torso, not arranged under it to carry (I almost said "bear" ) weight. MIB

You know if you dug in and helped the community research and solve the problem in the field instead of just beating up on them all the time the subject may progress faster and more to your own satisfaction. You'd waste less time and get better results as an ally in getting to the concrete bottom of things than jumping onto threads and calling members wrong all the time. Sometimes you get more bees with honey. But if you only care about the debate and the smugness in that no one can prove you wrong then it will continue to be a sad state of affairs for both sides. Where's the enjoyment in that?