Guest Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Every living thing and inanimate object has an electromagnetic field. I think some of you are getting that confused with the critters that zap you like electric eels and such. I'm just talking about what is naturally there in everything to varying degrees. I'm not denying it exists. I'm just denying that it is capable of being very useful out of the water. I could be wrong but no other land animal has adapted it this way. And if bigfoot is related to humans then it's probably definitely not the way they evolved because they would have to evolve a whole new way of metabolising I think. It would probably add to the calorie load they need to eat to get by and might require new organs or tissues to generate the larger field plus new brain matter to interpret the results. This would necessitate a lot of the correct mutations and a method of selection for the trait. I just don't think it could be done in less than a few million years and would probably require a lot more than that.
Guest Jodie Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 It's something you have naturally, not something you would have command over. I'm still looking and can't find an exact answer of what the IR/electromagnetic normals are for everything. Humans are around 12mu, the upper limit in cameras is set at 14mu. I'm not sure about something blocking out the signal from the background IR/EMF, regardless of the camera settings, wouldn't that set it off?
bipedalist Posted December 20, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 20, 2011 Some of the confusion may be in the delineation of meaurement units here: EMF equals background milligauss but could be measured in Hertz or kHZ for all organics including earth, groundwater, animate objects, electronic devices, human nervous system transmissions/brain waves etc. IR is a frequency of energy or wavelength which some animals may be able to actually sense or feel as a form of heat energy. I'm not clear on what mu measurement is and how it relates to above. I wouldn't be clear on whether the remote control discussed earlier would work on PIR or active IR either. Those are some of the definition of terms that would be required to understand interference with triggering. Distance from camera may make a difference for IR .... I would think the milligauss of an organic animate body such as a BF would have to have some kind of out of the ordinary production that would be outside of human comparisons in terms of measurement units if this were a true effect (Jodie's personal experiment or circumstances notwithstanding). I will say that the novel Falcon Project will be loaded with sensitive measurement devices to record and monitor infrasound or very low frequency sounds in a ten mile circle of ops. It should prove to be an interesting concept and how it relates to the current discussion would be for others to determine. I'm burned out and not ready to study physics right now.
Guest Forbig Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 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 don't know, I would consider this evidence objectively true when it had scientists on location measuring its proportions proving it wasn't a bear. Then we have the PGF, if Bob Herionimus never said he was the guy in the suit it still wouldn't be proof. Any clear photograph no matter how good even with serious investigating will always be considered as a hoax or something else unless a body comes with it. I don't want to discourage anyone from taking and showing them because all of us here do enjoy them, I'm just sayin . . . I can only guess that as long as you accept and mix in your beliefs about them, the absurd such as I bolded above, I can easily see why you find some things illogical. Separate the wheat from the chaff. It'll begin to make much more sense. A good eye witness sighting, a good picture, or video it all amounts to nothing. Maybe it was real that time, still nothing equals nothing. Only a body of evidence could give us some wheat to separate our chaff because it all might be chaff. Until then all we have anywhere are opinions. Mix those opinions up with all us opinionated people and we just keep talking in circles, it's kind of funny how it all works.
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 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. Yeah, I've searched for a telephoto game camera and I guess they don't exist. Maybe the next best thing would be to do something like the Plotwatcher, but only an HD camera with a telephoto lens, set on time lapse, taking large format photos. You would need to change out the card frequently. Plotwatcher itself seems very interesting, but the relatively smaller format with wider angle lens results in blobsquatches, you can't zoom in very far without losing resolution. Basically I think I need to build myself a system and figure out a way to protect it and hide it. Telephoto game cameras IMHO would greatly increase the chances of observing game without changing their behavior (coming up to smell the funny little noisy thing that smells like plastic) and may get images that would be otherwise impossible (like if BF do have the ability to sense and avoid game cameras). 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? Did you change the batteries?
Sasfooty Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 (man this feels good I had no idea thanks Sasfooty) You are very welcome. And thank you, it's so nice to finally be appreciated!
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 I hate to bring it up again, because I have else-where, but I suspect one of the reasons there aren't more pictures, or any at all, is that plenty of cameras are being deployed in places where there ARE NO sasquatch present. Secondary to that, camera placement is typically in places and ways that completely put the camera in exposed means. My group's experiences tend to suggest they don't follow paths or trails like you and I would out of common sense. We don't understand the creatures themselves well enough, which again suggests they're way smarter than you wish they were. Yes, putting cameras where they aren't would be a reason. Regarding camera position, perhaps if you want images of a predator then put it where the predator goes, like maybe on an ambush position ABOVE the game trail, or taking images of a pool and surrounding beaches in a salmon stream during the spawn, or clam beaches at low tide at night. Anywhere we would expect hunting or foraging opportunities. Did you see the documentary about grizzlies in Yellowstone? They converge on areas at different times of year, depending on what is in abundance. Calving areas in the spring. Fresh new grass. One of the most interesting was they all came to very high mountainsides that were huge boulder fields. They would turn over the boulders to lick up all the moths sheltering under the boulders for mating. The moths are high in fat and are sweet. Great footage of the bears feasting in the boulder field. I wonder if they also feed during the night, or whether some other big omnivore might take advantage during the night (unless the moths fly away at night)?
Guest StankApe Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Thank goodness StankApe.... at least not everyone has lost their sense of humor!!! I'm slowly learning on here that I need to post smilies cuz I have gotten into a few arguments when people didn't get that i was just being silly. But, tis the hazards of the interwebz. Tone of voice is often hard to transmit properly. It's something you have naturally, not something you would have command over. I'm still looking and can't find an exact answer of what the IR/electromagnetic normals are for everything. Humans are around 12mu, the upper limit in cameras is set at 14mu. I'm not sure about something blocking out the signal from the background IR/EMF, regardless of the camera settings, wouldn't that set it off? Some researcher has discovered that he had hallucinations and felt the presence of someone in an empty room around 19.6 mu (I'm guessing at the mu, I think I'm close tho). He presented this as an evidence for ghost sightings. It's pretty compelling and really could be the natural explanation for ghosts. I wonder if instead of camo'ing a game cam, if you painted it hot pink and covered it in cheap glitter and sequins and then did a little ritual dance with smoke and such if that would attract a Bigfoot to it? Kinda get them intrigued. Yes, putting cameras where they aren't would be a reason. Regarding camera position, perhaps if you want images of a predator then put it where the predator goes, like maybe on an ambush position ABOVE the game trail, or taking images of a pool and surrounding beaches in a salmon stream during the spawn, or clam beaches at low tide at night. Anywhere we would expect hunting or foraging opportunities. Did you see the documentary about grizzlies in Yellowstone? They converge on areas at different times of year, depending on what is in abundance. Calving areas in the spring. Fresh new grass. One of the most interesting was they all came to very high mountainsides that were huge boulder fields. They would turn over the boulders to lick up all the moths sheltering under the boulders for mating. The moths are high in fat and are sweet. Great footage of the bears feasting in the boulder field. I wonder if they also feed during the night, or whether some other big omnivore might take advantage during the night (unless the moths fly away at night)? yeah, I was thinking of water sources today as a good spot. All critters may go different ways in the deep woods, but if you can locate a nice isolated water source EVERYTHING generally goes there!
bipedalist Posted December 20, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 20, 2011 crappy double posts, about had it
bipedalist Posted December 20, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 20, 2011 http://www.inspectapedia.com/emf/EMF_Measurement_Tools2.htm http://www.inspectapedia.com/emf/EMF_Measurement_Procedure_Steps.htm Check left sidebar under EMF, all you'd wanna know as a primer, for those so inclined.
Guest Jodie Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Did you change the batteries? Yeah, we did the first night. All three worked perfectly tonight so, I don't know, just something strange that happened, I guess.
bipedalist Posted December 21, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 21, 2011 Use a set of four of these in the field: http://safespaceprotection.com/products/emf-protection-home-office-georesonators.aspx It could neutralize EMF around a gamecam (this is NOT a commercial). They sound like they could be reengineered to perhaps do some infrasound type stuff too, or at least act as an antenna for an infrasound detector perhaps.
JDL Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 A game cam is an off-the-shelf piece of technology. It was meant to photograph anything dumb enough to pass in front of it. Nothing more. It wasn't designed to catch pictures of a perceptive creature that can reason. If you want something that will reliably capture photos of a bigfoot, you have to have a system actually designed to photograph a bigfoot, and you have to have a strategy for the deployment of that technology that is designed to be effective against bigfoot. Further, to develop the technology and the strategy, you have to understand what a bigfoot is with regard to its capability to perceive its environment and with regard to its capability to reason its way through a perceived hazard (your technology and strategy). If you don't have enough information to go on, the logical approach is to assume that it is very perceptive and very smart, then (over)design your technology and strategy to catch it by surprise.
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) This would certainly be technology worthwhile for eliminating blobsquatches: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could-be-big-abc-news/never-worry-focusing-camera-again-044916300.html Shoot first, focus later.... who wudda thunk? The web site for the camera: https://www.lytro.com/camera "Relying on software rather than components can improve performance, from increased speed of picture taking to the potential for capturing better pictures in low light.".... veeerryy interesting! Click on areas of the picture, the out of focus "blobhumans" become clear... they exist! https://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/1700 Edited December 21, 2011 by BFSleuth
Recommended Posts