Thoughts As To Why Bigfoot Isn't Caught On Game Cams

[Guest Jodie]

Here's a cool camera malfunction this was the results of me trying to take a picture of a very large owl. I got very close and was below him and he flew. I was in the shadow of the woods and the sun was almost directly into the camera. Enjoy!

Mistake or not, that's gorgeous!!!

[Guest Waynescod]

Ok this is not going to go over well... it has been going on too long and i am at my breaking point here on this forum, you all need to know that the Skeptic's are out to get you and you're not safe ~

RRS

It's a well known fact that it's much harder to prove Bigfoot as real than it is to debunk it. Bigfoot organizations and fans need to work together to prove just one of these pieces of evidence as real, not work to debunk or test the validity of each. There's more than enough people in the anti bigfoot groups that will do that for us. When we argue over evidence it suggests that we ourselves don't even believe Bigfoot is real and that's counter productive. I've seen several times now where groups are over eager to make something look like it's not a Bigfoot and their arguments turn out to be wrong.

I don't understand the mindset here that worries about certain evidence because it will make us bigfooters look bad in the public eye. Poor evidence will always be here and there's already a large portion of the public that laughs at every piece of evidence that we have so far.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Waynescod

[Guest]

It's a well known fact that it's much harder to prove Bigfoot as real than it is to debunk it. Bigfoot organizations and fans need to work together to prove just one of these pieces of evidence as real, not work to debunk or test the validity of each. There's more than enough people in the anti bigfoot groups that will do that for us. When we argue over evidence it suggests that we ourselves don't even believe Bigfoot is real and that's counter productive. I've seen several times now where groups are over eager to make something look like it's not a Bigfoot and their arguments turn out to be wrong.

I don't understand the mindset here that worries about certain evidence because it will make us bigfooters look bad in the public eye. Poor evidence will always be here and there's already a large portion of the public that laughs at every piece of evidence that we have so far.

One of the reasons some skeptics laugh at the evidence is because we aren't always critical of the evidence ourselves. If we say every bit of "evidence" is proof of BF then we are not being objective. Hoaxes, lies and misidentifications have all been a part of this phenomenon and we need to weed these out before we point to them and say this is real. We only look foolish if we don't examine everything critically ourselves.

[Guest Jodie]

Ditto on what antfoot said, plus trying to think about real world explanations for failure, besides just concluding that bigfoot does not exist, might help with getting better evidence in the future if you can rule out malfunctions or limitations of the equipment as the cause.

[Guest Waynescod]

One of the reasons some skeptics laugh at the evidence is because we aren't always critical of the evidence ourselves. If we say every bit of "evidence" is proof of BF then we are not being objective. Hoaxes, lies and misidentifications have all been a part of this phenomenon and we need to weed these out before we point to them and say this is real. We only look foolish if we don't examine everything critically ourselves.

We don't have to be critical to the extreme on questionable evidence because it's all questionable and it will shut the entire search completely down. When somebody pulls a mask off a dead Bigfoot in a freezer that's a different story but to be critical of everything questionable makes us no better than anti bigfooters.

[Guest]

We don't have to be critical to the extreme on questionable evidence because it's all questionable and it will shut the entire search completely down. When somebody pulls a mask off a dead Bigfoot in a freezer that's a different story but to be critical of everything questionable makes us no better than anti bigfooters.

False. It makes as every bit as good as "anti bigfooters" and perhaps a little more reliable. Some of the opposition will dogmatically deny anything we put forth which is just as bad as accepting everything at face value. It's a good exercise to critique the evidence.

If evidence is good then it will survive the tests of criticism. if it faked or illusionary then it won't be useful.Bigfooters have been using data they believe are reliable for some time now. If it hadn't been vetted they might be following elves and swamp gas to find BF which would probably be less useful to the cause.

[Guest Waynescod]

If evidence is good then it will survive the tests of criticism. if it faked or illusionary then it won't be useful.

You're wrong on this theory because we don't kinow for sure if any of it is faked or illusionary any more than we know any of it's real. Until one is found all of the evidence is questionable in the back of our minds. Much of the questionable evidence will change status from "IDK about this one" to "wow that probably really was a Bigfoot" if they do find one.

[Guest]

It think they are just not in the right place.

One conundrum is that they have been observed close to human “stuffâ€, houses, sheds, vehicles, tents, dumpsters, etc. They apparently don’t avoid everything that is not naturally occurring.

Don Young’s WI ‘Big Phil’ photo was taken with the camera clamped to a camper I think.

Not camouflaged at all, and in his own yard. http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/wi_06_notes_big_phil_images.asp

(At first, his Phil photo might look fake, but once compared to the follow-up photo of his wife for comparison, it becomes convincing. Otherwise his wife’s photo looks fake!) Plus the extensive supportive background info.

A camera might be better placed disguised as something else that is interesting, and not natural. NOT trying to trick them just with bark and leaves.

As others have suggested, in a ball, or cooler, or teddy bear may have a better chance. Their guard may be down. Maybe part of an innocuous trail sign. (like a no trespassing sign for example).

How many cameras have been set-up VERY high, like 20ft up facing down. Harder to set-up but less detectable. More like a security camera than game cam.

A picture looking down on the top of a BF would not provide a whole lot of info, would it?

Well Pal many people camo these stealth cams and they do not stick out in plain site. I don't care how well BF knows his home if he is chasing a deer or running from a pack of dogs at night he will not have time or ability to scan and area backwards and forwards to see if a hidden camera lurks about. Either these creatures have ESP and they just know everything 100% abut whats going on in the woods, or they just aren't there ! Thats all that can explain while in known sighting areas littered with Cameras know one has gotten any pics or film in 15 years except for one the Jacobs pics in PA.

Could that be occurring because there are so few BF?

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.

Could you possibly explain what in the world you are even talking about? I do have an education and a degree, but somehow this is all Greek to me.

I understand IR, but for the rest of it,not so much.(Well,Not at all) Yikes!

That's funny, of all the TBRC beeching, I see this as a red herring (an excuse to change tactics and to explain their lack of sound recording over the years which IS more productive than gamecams from a practical pov). I've owned two Reconyx mid-grade cams and never had problems with them. (Just don't have that DMV pic of the big little guy yet)

I've had them monkeyed with from below and behind though so yes we face an intelligent foe and they are an expensive item, which if found, are going to be a target even if cabled.

The problem as mentioned above is in placement, programming, battery choice, camouflage and of course that all important feature.....a mini-hecs

hoodie..........

Okay, What exactly is a mini-hecs hoodie?

Probably the biggest issue is that they are not designed to capture photos of an intelligent, evasive, species that may be able to see the active light emissions from the device. They're designed to photograph things that either do not understand what the camera is, or cannot distinguish the camera from its environment.

Design one that is smaller, more easily concealed, has no emissions (light, infrared, noise, infrasound, vibrations, etc), can be deployed in a network of cameras, and you may be more successful.

Simplest answer is that the existing game cams are not the right tool for the job.

Okay, This is probably a stupid question, but could an open recording device be constantly on to capture everything, but is actually recorded at a different location from the live feed? Could that idea work?

Re: Use of dogs

Yes, this has been tried before, often to the detriment of the dogs. In some cases dogs that will aggressively track and corner bears or cougars will refuse to track bigfoot, to the point of tucking tail and running back to climb into the kennel. Google something like "bigfoot tracking dogs" and read a few reports.

Re: Comparison to search for Giant Squid

Yes, the Japanese scientist was on a one month FULLY FUNDED expedition WITH A FULL TIME PAID CREW to find the Giant Squid, and was successful. Are you implying that this was the one and only effort to find the Giant Squid? I'm sure the other scientists over decades of efforts would have words to say about that.

There aren't any scientific expeditions to find bigfoot that come anywhere close to the level of funding of that single one month expedition, not to mention the other efforts prior to that successful one. It isn't even close.

Imagine if we had a single expedition funded with millions of dollars and dozens of crew and scientists that used the very latest in technology, working on a full time basis (ie. paid employees). No, instead we have volunteer amateurs with limited resources, limited time, and limited knowledge of scientific method trying to wing it and bring their efforts together with internet forums, etc.

+1 to you from me. Isn't the Erickson Project being funded in part by Erickson? I believe that his investment in BF research has almost bankrupted him along with our bad economy.

[JDL]

Susie, the sensor and the recording medium can be separated from each other, but the sensor itself would still have to be designed to not be obvious to the squatch.

[Guest]

You're wrong on this theory because we don't kinow for sure if any of it is faked or illusionary any more than we know any of it's real. Until one is found all of the evidence is questionable in the back of our minds. Much of the questionable evidence will change status from "IDK about this one" to "wow that probably really was a Bigfoot" if they do find one.

We do know that some of it is faked without question.

If we find a bigfoot for real that does not make every sighting legitimate.

Modern researchers use the frequency of reports of details as a tentative clue to bigfoot's identity and habits. This material plus hypotheses regarding primates, early hominids, and modern humans gives the researchers something to work with. It is not necessarily true but it's all we have at present. Unless we include all of the hoaxes and mistaken identities as well. But then we wouldn't know where to start looking for BF at that rate. Who knows maybe bigfoot does have something to do with UFOs for instance but right now we don't know and there is very little reliable evidence for that based on repeatability of reports and hypotheticals. Researchers need to focus on what is established in the field already and not chasing after every blue-striped sasquatch report that comes along. There is nothing wrong with being discriminating about the reports you work with.

[Guest Waynescod]

We do know that some of it is faked without question.

There's no doubt that there are a lot of fakes.

If we find a bigfoot for real that does not make every sighting legitimate.

It does make the possibility much more likely that the questionable was real.

There is nothing wrong with being discriminating about the reports you work with.

You would have to be a hypocrite to dismiss questionable evidence and at the same time deem any other currently available Bigfoot evidence as real.

[Guest SwampMonster]

Who is to say that BF isn't being caught on game camera's? Not everybody would want to stir up a media frenzy, nor would they want the attention.

To many people, it would be a no win situation. Everybody would want to know where is was, then everybody would want to go there and would do anything (legal or illegal) to access the property. So much for my happy hunting grounds, or there goes the neighborhood.

I know the flip side of this view would be that there are many people using game camera's exclusively for the purpose of catching BF. So why aren't they getting them? Maybe some are and aren't interested in all of the hoopla that would result. Their own personal BF in an odd sort of way.

This point of view may get shot full of holes, but it is a moving target. How many people out there are content to prove to themselves that BF exists, smiling knowingly when the subject of "do they or don't they exist" comes up?

[Guest]

Don't have time to read whole thread, but sounds like u guys are looking right passed the biggest reason- scent. All these bogus tv shows, expeditions, etc are pointless imo unless the particular bigfoot in the area, which may be there once every 10,000 "expeditions', wants to be noticed. None of these "experts" have enough practical hunting experience to realize that scent control is the most important factor, besides sccouting, in getting close to game.

\Theres tons of scent eliminating products out there. Some work well, some are scams, but when u set a camera and walk away unless you and everything with you has been treated carefully with scent eliminating techniques you will not get a bigfoot within 100 yds of it. Even upwind there exists a scent cloud for a few yards, enough to put it outside sensor/flash range of most cams.

Set ur cams in the narrowest possible travel corridor betw/ feeding and bedding areas cuz game is most concentrated there and u can slip in/out w/o disturbing as much as in bedding. No idea where bigfoots bed, but my bet is back to the wind, facing more open terrain with escape routes closeby as well as water and food source within 200 yds of bed for that unavoidable midday stretch, poop and snack. Stay on top of natural mast/forage cuz feeding patterns change seasonally and so should your strategy. If acorns are dropping then thats where the wildlife is, salmon running etc.

Wouldnt be surprised if bigfoots pattern deer during summer and ambush them based on those known movements, or set up in pinch points during the deer rut to catch them when their guard is down. In deep snow months/areas, all none-hibernating large mammals will use path of least resistance so dont overlook well used deer/elk, etc trails in bigfoot trail cam sites. And in super thick areas with old logging roads same thing applies.

finally, stay downwind whenever possible, regardless of situation/intentions.

Sorry for rambling but if all bigfooters used these tehniques thered be a lot more close encounters or at least a couple.

[Martin]

..........

I've had them monkeyed with from below and behind though so yes we face an intelligent foe and they are an expensive item, which if found, are going to be a target even if cabled........

Hi Bipedalist,

Please give the details as to the fiddling with the cameras. How do you know that it was an intelligent foe?

Thanks,

Martin

[bipedalist]

Large marks on hard thermoplastic not consistent with impact (looked like large incisor or fang), cable wrenched around so hard the plastic access panel was dislocated off the reconyx rc-55 (could have only been effected by holding one part of the camera stable while twisting other parts in another direction, pictures of something black and hairy that was indeterminate but intelligent enough not to totally expose itself to the camera from it's front.........whatever played with this camera had hands ans super-strength in a off-limits area (that I have permission to be in), other evidence that can't be shared to this forum.