Leaderboard

Apes aren't known for having a remarkable sense of smell. Just a general observation.

NAWAC did a study on sounds emitted from game cameras back in 2013 and published their results in the link below. https://www.woodape.org/index.php/camera-test/ Below is a quote of their summary: "After measurements from testing indicating no detectable levels of either low frequency (infrasound) or high frequency (ultrasound) sound waves, we must conclude that sound frequencies that are undetectable to humans are not responsible for the seeming avoidance of our game cameras by any animal species, including the North American wood ape." Nonetheless, it appears that the test was conducted only with one game camera (Reconyx HC600). Thus, I am not sure if they can draw a conclusion for all game cameras. Maybe the internals of these game cameras are all basically the same and they can draw such conclusion. NAWAC did struggle with lack of BF detection with both their game camera traps and their night vision video cameras. They were looking for different hypotheses to help explain their lack of capture. Undetectable sounds to humans was one of the hypotheses they wanted to test. On the idea proposed above (that they can detect the scent of humans or plastic in game cameras and that triggers an avoidance response of the area), that might be one way of getting a signal but it does not explain why they approach campgrounds with plenty of scent of humans and plastics (but no game cameras). I recall reading a chapter in Thom Powell's book The Locals, whereas some BFs were approaching a house near the forest and grabbing food from an outside freezer, and then right after they placed game cameras and NV monitoring equipment, the visits stopped. That behavior is not just due to avoidance to human or plastic scent. There must have been something else going on that alerted the BFs not to approach the house again. I don't know. Maybe the RF and EMF emissions (proposed by @Skinwalker13 above) is the cause. However, houses are full of RF and EMF emissions with all their electronics, wiring, and utilities being used. So not sure, what these BF detected in the house that told them to stay away from detectable range.

We've recorded them emmiting RF and EMF while they are inactive.

I have heard anecdotal stories that BF can see IR light. I have not a clue if they can or cannot. However, I believe that there are other reasons that they avoid trailcams. 1) They probably saw you put it out 2) They know the area so well, they can discern out of the ordinary changes very quickly and accurately 3) They can smell it 4) They can smell the people, and their trail, who put it out 5) They can hear it when it snaps images of other animals Question for folks, do trailcams emit noise when NOT taking an image? That is when they are just sitting there and doing nothing. I am guessing they do not, but again have no clue about it. The electronics are still working, but in a passive mode.

Sasquatch, it's nice to see you'll be attending. Being the second Bigfoot Festival held in Mena, it will be interesting to see how the attendance is. Regarding the speakers, I wonder if one or two of the speakers at the Ouachita Festival might also be speaking at the Honobia festival since the two towns are only about 50 miles apart and the Honobia Bigfoot Festival is the following weekend after the one in Mena. I was thinking maybe one or two speakers that are from the OK/AR region.

Not sure if this counts as high end or low end, but got an inflatable Kayak that gets me significantly easier access to territory that is much closer to my local BF's population home than I can access by foot. Takes about 10 minutes to setup and 5 minutes to pack away. Weighs about 40 pounds so is not really backpackable. The challenge now is to get my GS puppy to ride in it with me without poking a hole in it with claws or tipping us over.

My outing today was of the social variety, rather than research, but it was great to get out and be with other local researchers, after almost a year and a half of varying levels of restrictions on gatherings. We met at a small park in the mountains near Chilliwack, B.C. at about noon, and spent the whole afternoon enjoying good food and catching up on our efforts over the last year. The weather was perfect, with the heat wave moderating and the fire smoke easing for the day due to a refreshing breeze through the old cedars that shaded us. Besides myself, other BFF members there included MagniAesir, Grandcherokee, and Thomas Steenburg, as well as a few interested parties who are not on BFF. One of those is Darcy, who has been working on a full size Sasquatch sculpture in styrofoam, which got knocked over by a curious young lad of about 6 or 7, but only suffered minor damage.

I wouldn't state that as a universal truth ... I don't find this to be true. Quite the opposite: as a researcher, I start with what amounts to an anecdote (report) and do the research to find the evidence. Expecting that to be provided for me is putting the cart in front of the horse. MIB

Dang, that's funny, right there. I don't care who ya are.

This is a good question. I am of mixed mind. Based on personal observation, there is something "funny" about bigfoot vision. Seeing into infared would account for those observations. The problem, though, is that trail camera triggers do not use projected infared. The only time a camera produces anything infared that could be seen is when the IR flash goes off and the picture is being taken. The only way that could alert a bigfoot to the presence of the camera is if bigfoot happened to see the camera flash when it takes a picture of something else. I do not think seeing infared accounts for them avoiding trail cameras, not by seeing anything the trail camera is producing anyway. I have another notion. In the way of an experiment, I set up two trail cameras facing each other, one inert, the other active, then triggered the active camera to take a picture which I observed. The inert trail camera was not camouflaged under the IR flash, it was a solid color rectangular box. If bigfoot is truly seeing cameras and avoiding them, then it might be because though the cameras are camouflaged to us humans, they are out of place solid color boxes to bigfoot eyes. If that is the case, then we need to completely hide the camera within some natural material so that the plastic is not visible. I don't have any cameras out right now, but when I do, I cover them with tree bark, burlap, leaves, or the like, and I attach them to trees with black wood screws and thin black wire rather than wide straight straps which are eyecatching. Hmmm .. one of my friends has one of those rock cams .. a trail camera built into an artificial rock. I'll ask him if he has a regular IR trail camera and if so if he could take a picture of his rock under IR with that camera to see if it is hidden or stands out in some way. MIB

The Strains will have a symposium at his event on 8/29.

No trolling here and I never said I was a researcher. And I never asked for an academic report. And my comments are fully in context. You make presumptions based on opinion. That's clear. You have offered nothing in the way of an archaeologist approach. I'm not am at archaeologist either but I know what they do. You don't. You don't even know how to do archaeology research in the areas you talk about. How is is that I can do that but you can't or don't?

Put on some Steely Dan. He'll thank you!

Bad day.

Hello everyone. I'm from the UK. I decided to join this forum because I appreciate the thought the moderators have put into defining the operating terms - very fair. I also appreciate that the site takes the angle that bigfoot is flesh and blood, rather than paranormal. It's good not to make the range too wide (bigfoot is complicated enough as it is!) I hope the paranormalers find their own safe space.