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

[Guest exnihilo]

I agree with the point made regarding a camera/trap in the woods.

However, if a coyote came nosing around an average urban home that had several game cams then I think he would get his picture taken. It would be hard for the coyote to tell the difference between a flower pot, lawn mower, 4 wheeler, garden hose, bug zappers, barbeques, patio furniture etc etc etc and a game cam. IMHO Same goes for bigfoot.

That's actually an interesting idea. What if the game cam was put around the human areas where they meet woods / cover, rather than placed on game trails or hidden in the woods. Maybe you might catch BF pulling a 'peeping Tom' routine.

I does kind of line up with some of the other 'judo' techniques like filming outside your line of sight, which appear to have achieved some results.

[Guest]

1. No human behind a game camera controlling it: > Cannot take in 135 degree field of view, shift focus, aim and zoom on detected movement of animals that are unrecognized by science.

> Cannot pick up and move point of view or location when an area proves unproductive.

> Can easily be tricked into triggering by wind, water and light.

> Due to potential loss when leaving unattended equipment in the field, only cheap merchandise is used... Like in cheap mechanics, optics, weak flashes, time lag, sensors and chips.

> Heat affects digital camera chips, cold affects the batteries, and infrared is not a high enough resolution.

> Unkown if game cameras have a detectable sound, shape, or smell.

> Unattended camera is like looking through a low power telescope, or straw, where it cannot search for something to take a picture of, just wait for something to move into the field of view.

2. So far only one type of camera seems that have worked out in capturing Bigfoot. Roger Patterson's.

3. Hunters who place game cams out are looking for game. They point low or from a high point down.

4. All pictures from game cameras claiming to be an image of Bigfoot, was not witnessed by anyone. The very argument lawyers are making with red light cameras. If science won't accept a picture, they certainly won't accept a picture with no one controlling it.

5. Patty is not accepted because it did not do anything that a human could not do in that film. Image if after being startled by RP he captured the animal jumping in the air with a 20 foot leap, or it picked up a stick or rock and threw it at the camera, hitting it directly on the lens, or came over and ripped BG's legs off and threw him against a tree. All that is on that film is an animate object moving from point A to point B, like a human would by walking on two legs. It took years of suit making, observations and practice for the costumed human chimps in films to finally become believable.

[bipedalist]

May be true Rick but as Rumsfeld said: "You go to war with the technology you have--- not the technology you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Insert army for technology for the real deal.

Edited January 21, 2012 by bipedalist

[bipedalist]

Seems Montana has gone through some growing (groaning sic) pains with game cameras.

Note to Thread: This is NOT a political link, please don't make it one.

http://www.nrahunter...le.aspx?id=3322

but excludes tracking collars attached to hunting dogs oddly enough? Go Figure!

Since all but the most expensive wireless/cell transmission camera's do not track an animal and take

pictures and transmit them in real-time it seems the initial premise as to the ban was somewhat flawed.

Edited August 16, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest BFSleuth]

No political intent noted. I read through some of the comments from your link and agree with this:

" If the intent of the Montana game camera law is to ensure fair chase, that intent can be accomplished with an “easy†fix…change one word. Change one word (‘or†to “andâ€), and re-write the main point to read “…scout the location of game animals and relay the information on a game animal’s location…during hunting…†Recognizing that the picture on the camera only shows where the animal was when the picture was taken, and not where it is minutes, hours, or days later is key. If the picture is not transmitted to the hunter in real time, the hunter only knows that this animal has passed this location at some time in the past…they’ll still have to find it again. Knowing that the big three (deer, antelope and elk) game animals all have home ranges and territories that cover several square miles each, the game camera information is only helpful…the hunter still has a lot of work to do on his own time…and that’s still fair chase."

It does bring this issue to the attention of BF researchers, since game cams set up during hunting season could be interpreted as being in violation of this law. I encourage all BF researchers that deploy game cams to immediately check with your state hunting rules and regulations. If Montana has such a law in place for 12 years, then it follows that other states may also have similar rules and regulations.

Good find, bipedalist!

[bipedalist]

Yes, it does apply to hunting season only I suppose, question is in Montana I'd imagine there are many hunting seasons that might cover most of the year except perhaps summer months. And again it goes back to the problem one of our Canadian members had in regard to the definition of hunting in receiving a citation. In an Alberta Provincial Park it seems searching for BF was interpreted as hunting and he didn't even have a game camera just nv and/or thermal gear.

Edited August 16, 2012 by bipedalist

[Spader]

Wow, way back in December of 2010 when I posted this topic I had no idea it would produce so much dialogue. Thanks everybody! About a month or so ago on Science Friday on NPR I was listening to a scientist who studied a small shrimp that had over 20 cones in its visual system,(to our four) alowing it to see colors we cant. Could it be possible for an animal to see in the infrared spectrum? If Bigfoot had this ability the game cams would be like setting off a floodlight in the forest. I tried searching the thread so if its been brought up already a thousand pardons.

[Drew]

I think the simplest explanation is that there is no physical 'Bigfoot' to capture on a game cam.

[Spader]

Do you mean Bigfoot is a type of ethereal creature? Phantom like? No substance or physical matter to photograph? Im just curious because I believe anything is possible.

[Guest Figboot]

It's an interesting question and I don't think there's one definitive answer. Firstly, there may well be a trail cam photo somewhere, probably an older one that someone kept to themselves for whatever bizarre reason. It happens with other photographs and videos so I don't see why not with trail cam pics.

How common are trail cams really? In comparison to square acreage of wilderness, its probably very low. Especially if you then divide that by the relatively few number of squatches.

They aren't the most reliable of tech either, plus how far can they photograph? What is their field of view? You can probably bet on sod's law that a squatch has walked right behind a trail cam instead of infront. What we need is high up, high def, multi-directional cams. That is all assuming they can't see any infra-red light or detect any energy or sound being emitted from the cams.

These are all only theories of course. My guess is that a good pic will eventually turn up. That is if the Squatch doesn't rip the camera to shreds once it realises it has been caught on camera.

[Sunflower]

I think the simplest explanation is that there is no physical 'Bigfoot' to capture on a game cam.

Drew,

Yes there have been pics caught with a game cam. Look at the avatar to the left. It is a crop from a larger pic and the hairy person had figured out that every time they made a move in the bushes the game cam would make a noise.

Another time they picked up a pencil and there are 862 pics of a pencil going to and fro......

[Drew]

Sunflower, you might think it is a Bigfoot, but that tiny little pic looks like a blurry green and brown tye-dye. Do you have a large, original photo to share? Or a link to where you shared it?

Spader- I don't think Bigfoot is an ethereal creature. I think, with regards to sightings, Bigfoot is a construct of the human mind. With regard to hoaxes, I think Bigfoot is a folk legend, families pass on stories and tricks from generation to generation in some areas.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Not to derail the thread too much, Drew... but let's take salubrious's sighting report as an example. Would that classify as a construct of the human mind? Seems like a rather large and vivid construct. I find it pretty hard to believe that salubrious or many other witness sighting reports are a "construct". It is easier to believe in the idea of a construct until you try and wrap that idea around some of these detailed, up close, and very personal recounting of their experiences.

However, as this thread is about issues concerning game cameras and how or why BF are adept at avoiding them and not about whether or not BF exists, we could take your answer over on salubrious's sighting report... or you can start a thread about your theory of BF being a construct of the human mind so we can debate away on that issue.

[Guest]

Mabee BF avoids places hunted by humans especialy during hunting season. I also think the trail cam is easy for them to spot. Think of it like this you work at the office every day, nothing changes. When one of your co-workers gets flowers, whats the first thing you notice when you walk in? The peice of the forest that isnt natural in that environment. It must be the same for BF with that square chunk of plasic in his "office".

[Guest]

Bigfoots aren't caught on game cams because they do not want their picture taken. Iz as simple as that OP.