bipedalist Posted December 19, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 19, 2011 ... I cannot remember the specifics of the article,but not only did it know it was there,it messed it up. It was a navigational thing,how do we know that a deep woods critter has not developed its own version of a navigational aid? And I know its far,far fetched,but its possible, and that nav system may be affected by energy fields emitted by devices? Henry Franzoni would not disagree with you Chief. You've got to wonder. ...I know I am reaching here,but lets face it,the field has become so desperate we have vigilante experts out there trying to shoot one. Trying?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Maybe it's you!!!! lol Seriously, if it was you specifically than it would never work for you on any remote anywhere. The fact that you stated it was this one event calls all kinds of other variables to come into affect (and this isn't a dismissal of this one event, just that it can't be pinpointed to one obvious answer) First off they aren't taking about walking in between the remote and the TV as being the inrerference caused by human bodies. What if your EMF fluctuates like your body temperature tends to do? Do we know if that happens? I'm asking you because you would be more likely to know than I would, unless you are faking being a physics student on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 19, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 19, 2011 That's astrophysics remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Personally I'm not too upset that Sasq hasn't been caught on Game Cams as of yet as there is a lot of other evidence over thousands of years that states he's she's out there. Our very own First Nation's people up here in Canada attest to that. In the mean time please enjoy this link to Parks Canada and a Game Cam they set up about 90 mins East of my house and see the absolutely incredible footage they captured! If this Link doesn't work then go to youtube and Google A Wild Year Banff National Park. Great video! Their method, of setting a camera trap for one year at one location, is a great one. I'm wondering whether this might be a way to get results in our research, but instead of a standard wide angle lens, maybe try setting it up with a telephoto lens that captures a river pool where salmon rest on their migration? Set the camera when the salmon aren't running, well in advance of the season when BF would be there. In other words, setting the trap when they aren't as likely to be in the area. When the salmon run happens, then the camera trap won't have human scent on it. Make the placement of the camera enclosed in a hollowed out log or stump, well hidden, and hiding all odors and sounds. Worth a try. Question is, does any camera trap on the market have a telephoto lens, and if not how could you rig one up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 It's a sad fact of life in the Bigfoot world that even if you witness one, get some type of cast, or even a high definition video If it's proof you're after you have wasted your time and money. NOTHING short of a body will do. That's an opinion, but 'when' someone actually brings in a high definition video of one, that will be a game changer. That episode with Cliff making that statement about the Jacob 'photo' is sad. I really like him, but it shows how objectivity goes out the window when you WANT to believe something too deeply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Sasquatch is not the only creature with that sort of ability, there are cases of other animals responding to energy, a good example is the great white shark, when they had one in a tank, it just continually rammed itself where there was an uninsulated junction box behind the wall of its tank. I cannot remember the specifics of the article,but not only did it know it was there,it messed it up. It was a navigational thing,how do we know that a deep woods critter has not developed its own version of a navigational aid? And I know its far,far fetched,but its possible, and that nav system may be affected by energy fields emitted by devices? I know I am reaching here,but lets face it,the field has become so desperate we have vigilante experts out there trying to shoot one. Sharks have a lateral line that picks up the electrical impulses of it's prey. It's not zapping game cams and causing underwatrer cameras to malfunction . we have plenty of underwater footage of sharks with no electrical malfunctions First off they aren't taking about walking in between the remote and the TV as being the inrerference caused by human bodies. What if your EMF fluctuates like your body temperature tends to do? Do we know if that happens? I'm asking you because you would be more likely to know than I would, unless you are faking being a physics student on the internet. I would expect a mild fluctuation, but I seriously doubt that it was caused by you. Sorry but unless it happens periodically at your own house I would say it was most likely caused by the environment. Maybe in combination with something you were wearing? Oh and yes i was an astronomy /physics student when I was in college 20 years ago. Now I keep up with it by reading books and watching PBS! lol That's an opinion, but 'when' someone actually brings in a high definition video of one, that will be a game changer. That episode with Cliff making that statement about the Jacob 'photo' is sad. I really like him, but it shows how objectivity goes out the window when you WANT to believe something too deeply. hence the excitement for the Erickson footage. It is supposed to be hi-def video ,close up footage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I did not say anything about zapping game cams,or causing them to malfunction. I implied because of some sort of senses they can detect them because they give off an energy field, or a "sound" or to them maybe even a glow,please don't escalate it to a "zap" to make it sound ridiculous, its not really any more ridiculous than migratory birds abilities, or how about spawning fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'm pretty sure that and maybe a few others were Bigfoot, but one thing everyone has to realize is that it doesn't matter how clear of a photo anyone gets of Bigfoot it will never be proof of existence. It's a sad fact of life in the Bigfoot world that even if you witness one, get some type of cast, or even a high definition video If it's proof you're after you have wasted your time and money. NOTHING short of a body will do. This oft repeated canard needs to be put to rest. I disagree vehemently. Produce a clear, sharp, focused photograph of the creature and it would do wonders to spark interest, and perhaps even more serious investigation. It won't be proof, I agree about that, but it's a disservice to discourage anyone from pursuing a clear photograph. Not a blobsquatch, but a clear, sharp photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I did not say anything about zapping game cams,or causing them to malfunction. I implied because of some sort of senses they can detect them because they give off an energy field, or a "sound" or to them maybe even a glow,please don't escalate it to a "zap" to make it sound ridiculous, its not really any more ridiculous than migratory birds abilities, or how about spawning fish? You were using at as an allusion for some sort of natural EMF that could affect technology. Or else what would be the point of posting it? Lot's of animals use electricity (eels, catfish,rays...etc) and other animals have infrasound (alligators when dominance calling for mates). But I know of no large mammal (much less a primate) that has the ability to take out technology by use of any natural method (well, other than smashing it). That's the lynchpin of this. Not that animals don't have a varoety of interesting abilities at their disposal, that this one in particular seems both unlikely and unprecedented. That doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE, but it does say it's very very unlikely. This oft repeated canard needs to be put to rest. I disagree vehemently. Produce a clear, sharp, focused photograph of the creature and it would do wonders to spark interest, and perhaps even more serious investigation. It won't be proof, I agree about that, but it's a disservice to discourage anyone from pursuing a clear photograph. Not a blobsquatch, but a clear, sharp photo. I totally agree. One really crisp clear photograph (as clear as one of any other wild animal in nature seen on Nat Geo or wtvr) would go a LOOONG way in confirming existence. As stated , it wouldn't be "proof" but it WOULD be quite a motivating factor for increased mainstream scientific study. especially when combined with DNA. (hence the Erickson/ Ketchum thing driving us insane with impatience) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I also agree with "Incorrigible's" post, i have said it many times before, i would be delighted with a clear picture, it would seriously turn my head around. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) No Stankape, I was alluding to it could DETECT technology, not AFFECT technology,there is a notable difference between detect, and affect, and I hate to bring it up again,but if your going to reply to it,at least read it first. The point of posting it is because the thread is entitled "Thoughts As To Why Bigfoot Isn't Caught On Game Cams ",meaning if he can see or detect it some how,he is going to avoid it. Edited December 20, 2011 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Great video! Their method, of setting a camera trap for one year at one location, is a great one. I'm wondering whether this might be a way to get results in our research, but instead of a standard wide angle lens, maybe try setting it up with a telephoto lens that captures a river pool where salmon rest on their migration? Set the camera when the salmon aren't running, well in advance of the season when BF would be there. In other words, setting the trap when they aren't as likely to be in the area. When the salmon run happens, then the camera trap won't have human scent on it. Make the placement of the camera enclosed in a hollowed out log or stump, well hidden, and hiding all odors and sounds. Worth a try. Question is, does any camera trap on the market have a telephoto lens, and if not how could you rig one up? Game cams are short range affairs, due to the trigger system. My group decided based on this to use a Plotwatcher. It is a time lapse camera that can cover a larger area. They are utilized to check out deer or other game using a food plot in a clearing. The first time we deployed it, we got a photo of a blob-squatch. The disturbing thing to me it appeared to be focused (even though it wasn't very focused) on the camera. The wolves in the video seemed to hear the camera, and some of the other animals seemed to notice. I can't be sure of some, but first dark wolf at 4:08 hears or in some other way senses the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) edited out another double post! Edited December 20, 2011 by John T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Sharks have a lateral line that picks up the electrical impulses of it's prey. It's not zapping game cams and causing underwatrer cameras to malfunction . we have plenty of underwater footage of sharks with no electrical malfunctions I would expect a mild fluctuation, but I seriously doubt that it was caused by you. Sorry but unless it happens periodically at your own house I would say it was most likely caused by the environment. Maybe in combination with something you were wearing? Oh and yes i was an astronomy /physics student when I was in college 20 years ago. Now I keep up with it by reading books and watching PBS! lol hence the excitement for the Erickson footage. It is supposed to be hi-def video ,close up footage! Well it did it again last night ( volume would not work when I was in the room) so I have no explanation. I was wearing pajamas Sunday night, regular jeans and a sweater Monday night, so I don't think it is the clothes issue. I have a different type of remote at my house, haven't had any trouble. I don't know, it was just weird. There are game cam pics of things that some say are bigfoot, probably many more pics that we have never seen made public, so evidently whatever it is, is not a constant. Since the same kind of code/ mechanism is used in some of those game cams, I would imagine that a strong EMF would affect how it works regardless of the source. Is that the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) From my experience with my game camera. We are putting way to much faith in what is a basic almost toyish piece of technology. Although expensive for us commoners. The current crop of cams are going to be subject to all sorts of issues. I have deleted many photos of nothing, weird photos of something up close, deer that walk right up and all but say hello. if you buy one you will find out very quickly, they are a lot of fun but your going to have all kinds of stuff happen that's going to happen with this basic technology. The Olympic project has had how many cameras out for how long and got what. The same thing we all get at some point, a squirrel running across the camera or a bear trying to get to what he thinks is food. Dream up all the theoretical reasons you want that biggie can't be caught on camera but it's really kinda simple Bigfoot is just really rare or doesn't exsit. Edited December 20, 2011 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts