Leaderboard

And to this date in any history anywhere, there's just no rational basis to believe a BF either. It makes great internet fodder and campfire talk, but perpetuating myth as truth only muddies the waters for the truly believable encounters. It's like that thread on here somewhere where the 'idea' is presented that BF's all weigh 800 lbs and 'yada yada yada' when there's absolutely no rational basis to know how much or even if they could begin to weigh that much. Speculation in bigfooting is so rampant to the degree it's diminished the credibility of a lot of what is put out there that could be real data and information.

Updated SSR Database numbers - 1 month later Georgia, North Carolina, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Florida are all DONE plus Nova Scotia (which only had 2 reports). Alaska was and is basically done, but I still have 13 AK reports to check for accuracy. (13) BFRO reports left to classify: 596 (400 in US and 196 in Canada) California (190) Oregon (164) South Carolina (24) Louisiana (22) BC (82) AB (32) MB (23) ON (41) NB (6) QC (3) SK (6) YT (3)

BIgfoot has a natural ability to blur a camera when it chooses to.

I've been seriously interested in photography since 1965 and embraced digital about 14 years ago. I also live in a rural subdivision and take a lot of wildlife photos so have some thoughts on this. The big functional differences, aside from lens focal length, between DSLR and/or ILC (interchangeable lens compacts that replace the mirror and pentaprism of a DSLR with electronic viewfinders) and so called Superzoom cameras are sensor size and speed of operation. The larger the sensor, the larger the lens needed to fill the frame with an image at a given focal length, so the lens focal length of cameras with sensors smaller than full frame is expressed as an equivalent of the full frame focal length. The Nikon D900 83 X lens is roughly equivalent to a 2,400 mm lens on a full frame camera. That works out to just under 8', not practical to haul around in the woods, except maybe for a Bigfoot. The trade-off of the powerful lens is that the smaller sensor is generally going to have less resolution, expressed as mega-pixels, than larger sensor. While some small sensor cameras pack in a lot of MP, each is smaller than those on a larger sensor of the same resolution resulting in reduced light gathering ability per pixel and less sensitivity in low light (among other things). The chart below compares the relative size of sensors used in most cameras. The other factor, speed of operation is determined by the power of the camera's processor and software and to some extent the hardware components. The speed refers to how fast the auto-focus and auto-exposure work and how fast still images can be recorded at a given resolution before the buffer fills up and stops to load images to the memory card. As a general rule, DSLR and ILC cameras have faster processors, larger buffers and more powerful software so they not only focus and adjust exposure faster, but the delay between powering up the camera and taking the first photo is much shorter. One final thing to mention regarding zoom lenses, regardless the type of camera or sensor size, on most the maximum aperture (governing the amount of light that can pass through the lens to the sensor) declines as the lens is zoomed out. In zooms for full frame cameras, only very expensive lenses maintain a constant maximum aperture regardless of focal length. I currently have a DSLR and an older Superzoom, both made by Canon. There is a camera I've been researching that combines some of the traits of each type; it is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300K 4K 24X F2.8 Long Zoom Digital Camera. The lens is designed by Leica and is one of the highest quality optics in this type of camera and while its zoom is only 24 X it maintains the maximum f 2.8 aperture throughout that range. It also has a powerful processor and software allowing it to focus and set aperture as fast or faster than all but the highest end DSLRs. It shoots 4K video and allows you to make still photos while filming without interruption. It can be set to record JPEG and/or RAW images. JPEG uses data compression to decrease the file size of each image but introduces undesirable artifacts. RAW files contain all of the image data to be recorded allowing more options in adjusting the images after they have been downloaded. Cost on that model is just under $600, and I've seen it discounted $100 by both B&H Photo and Adorama. It's the best compromise between the two types of cameras that I've seen yet. A final note. Ignore the digital zoom rating of a camera, it is no different than cropping a smaller part of an image and enlarging that part. It makes the subject appear larger but also magnifies compression artifacts and effectively decreases image resolution.

Ok, so I joined the NSS and will purchase the bulletins detailing cave locations and maps in WV. We cannot make the locations public according to our terms of use. We will propose a survey of animals entering caves by placing camera traps at the entrance of selected caves. If approved, WVFooter and I will place cameras and service them for an extended period of time, we're committing to two years. We should be able to get permission from the National Forest Service (an NSS member) and provide data to the NSS twice per year, maybe publish a "bulletin" with the results. We will not be entering the caves, just monitoring the entrance. This will ease concerns of cave contamination and facilitate a permit. There are hundreds of caves in WV, over 1000 known in the state and about 500 around our research area. I personally do not think any evidence of BF will result from this, but I'm willing to leave no "stone unturned". The caving guys and gals have been all over these caves and found nothing, as far as we know. Maybe they're holding back... we'll see. Aside from the BF angle, we might discover an animal which uses the caves and carries the WNS virus into the caves. A win-win.

The day that it becomes known that one has been taken - it's going to be one big, international doo-doo-storm. There's going to be a lot of excitement, lots of weeping and gnashing of teeth, and everyone and their brother will be wanting not only access - but control. The more well funded scientific groups - will have the Feds behind them. Feds will come from the approach that only the possession of the body will ensure an adequate, professional, scientific analysis and examination (which will take many years), and anything less will deny full scientific understanding of this remarkable "discovery." The Federal government - Department of Interior especially - assume every animal in the nation technically falls under Federal jurisdiction. Then, if the Department of Defense decides - they may make the declaration that this falls under National Security, and try to bend this find to fall under 35 U.S.C. 181-188. That law pertains primarily to technological developments or inventions of new technologies - but they can pretty much bend the interpretation any way they wish. Then, one is not even allowed to discuss or mention it again. This Federal gag order that accompanies this - will get you a long Federal prison sentence if you again open your mouth about it. Now, why would the Feds be interested? Five will get you ten, they really want to have a close look at those eyes. And the genetic code - for their own experiments - or to prevent the genetic code from being made public - which could enable unfriendlies to conduct their own "research experiments." States will themselves have a thousand questions - and again, to see if there's a way the state can find a way to get control. In the interest of the public scientific knowledge advancement. The arguments will be that possibly state game laws were broken, some will toss out that this may possibly be a part human - and thus murder charges are possible (but can't be determined until a careful examination takes place), But they'll make a deal - immunity in exchange for the corpse. So very generous. So, it may be a good idea to glove up, as JDL stated - even the ticks could be a problem. But you better have a plan - a good one - once you get a body. Because there's a lot of players going to be wanting to get their hands on it. And some can be absolutely ruthless.

What would be the motive for any Govt. agency confiscating the corpse? To cover it up and to further the plausibility of them being non-existant ? Thinking along these lines would to me at least, make me want to avoid being hush hush about the find, and get it out to a reliable news outlet that will immediately break the story on a national level. Once your local yokel NBC affiliate reporter and camera crew shoot a bunch of footage of what can only be a real body (and not a monkey suit + pig guts stuffed in a freezer), it'd be nearly impossible for them to sweep it under the rug. If the Feds found out it was being stored at a local college, and you hadn't told anyone publicly? They could swoop right in and make that thing disappear in a flash. I think the safe bet would also be, as has been mentioned already, to section the body and to keep at least a few recognizable pieces separate from whatever is handed over to anyone for examination. All these years later, I'm still trying to figure out the necessary thought process involved for those two guys to actually believe they were going to pull that charade off. Man, I cant even imagine how nervous and excited I'd be, If id been dumb lucky enough to put a soft point through old big and stinky's gourd, and had the body stashed somewhere safe ! Its been a good Winter for keeping an eye on things here in upstate NY. A consistent snow pack for most of the Winter, which allows me as im driving around on some of these back roads that border (or go through) large tracts (1000's of acres) of state forest land, to keep my eyes pealed for tracks, or large dark shapes against a pure white background. But its been cold also, and I believe that's going to severely limit any activity.