ThePhaige Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 It is my theory that Ssq are very attuned and adept at using and manipulating the multitudes of frequency, I believe it is a core element to the infrosound phenomenon as well as some of their communicative methods. I believe their senses are calibrated to the world/science of frequency and wave technology is ways that have not been so well observed in other species and is not so very well understood nor taken very seriously. It is my hypothesis that they use frequency and wave manipulation in their vision, hearing , vocalizing and sensing. Without getting too deep on the subject and sticking with the topic...to me its very simple. Every modern electronic device manufactured by today's standards contain electronics and also internal clocks. I would submit that although SSq may have learned what a camera or other field device may look like in the hands of a human being, that , that is not the main force behind their identification or said devices. Each clock and most all electronics and processors contain quartz crystal which when either compressed or have power put to them emit a very specific vibration or frequency. It is that vibration that regulates time keeping. I submit that the SSq can in fact perceive these frequencies and are alerted well in advance. It is the same with any device that gives off a frequencies or waves of any kind. I think the mastery of these waves and frequencies is the basis for most of the paranormal like abilities they posses. If it isn't projecting them in some fashion to use as a tool , then it is the ability of perceiving them for the same. Even the sensors in motion activated cameras work on detecting a wave change in the atmosphere, whether it be a motion wave, and infrared (light wave),a microwave (a wave also), or a thermal wave, they all work on frequencies and waves, and literally fill the study area with all of these (to the SSq) unnaturally occurring, view able and measurable disturbances. When and if we capture or a SSq volunteers one self for study, we are going to be in store for some eye opening revelations and reevaluations IMO. There is so much more I that can be said on this...
TD-40 Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 They can see IR plain and simple. For the sake of arguement, let's say that's true. It just wouldn't matter. "IR Cameras" don't emit IR unTIL the sensor has detected heat or motion, THEN the picture gets taken. IR cameras are NOT, I repeat, NOT sitting around spewing out IR 24/7 to take a picture. This is NOT how they work. Also, if you think about it, there would need to be a source of IR light naturally occuring at night for the species to benefit from it. There's IR included in the spectrum of energy the earth is bombarded with during the daylight, but what good is THAT to them since you can already see in the daylight. Then when the sun sets, visible and IR from the sun is gone. Having IR enabled eyes with no natural source would do them no good. "Nature" would not have selected a feature to be present and highly developed when there was neither any demand or capablility of using or utilizing it. Interesting and you are probably right about infrared and sasquatch/animal evolution. However, this leads to an idea about distance. Most game cams I've seen do not take pictures until the heat subject (animal) is pretty close. The camera has to be emitting some type of frequency to detect the heat, even many yards away. Should a sasquatch be out of range for the camera, perhaps 40 yards away, the sasquatch might be able to detect some abnormal frequency that it would not recognize and could feel compelled to stay away from the area, unbeknownst what the frequency was. And the sasquatch would be too far away for the camera to take a picture. Therefore, we don't see sasquatches on game cams. Being a higher intelligence, I presume that sasquatches are smart enough to stay away from this sort of thing, while lower intelligence animals either don't sense the frequency or are not disturbed by it.
Guest Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Your skipping out on the wierd stuff. I have heard from 2 independant sources that the camera goes 'blank' at times, one from a known habituation (forced) site, and the others in suspected bigfoot areas. Blank as in white frames. Bizzare and very wierd.
Old Dog Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Why are there no good photos or videos of BF? Why do they avoid cameras? I don't think they really do. Let's consider this. There are over 736,000,000 acres of forest land in the U.S. even if you deployed hundreds or thousands of cameras to try and capture one on camera, your chances are probably better to hit the lottery. You have to consider that the area that the camera frame covers is rather small, maybe a few hundred feet at best, and that is not taking into consideration the fact you are photographing trees and dense foliage. That shrinks the frame depth considerably. I believe most encounters are by chance, and the mistake of the creature to be in the same area as humans. I would imagine their sense of smell and hearing would be fairly acute for their surroundings, and they would hear us coming well in advance, and avoid contact. Of course there is the flip side of the coin, and they are curious. This may be what causes some encounters. But it still sadly remains, hundreds of millions of acres, and cameras with small view fields will not produce any substantial results on average. You just gotta get lucky.
Guest Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Why are there no good photos or videos of BF? Why do they avoid cameras? I don't think they really do. Let's consider this. There are over 736,000,000 acres of forest land in the U.S. even if you deployed hundreds or thousands of cameras to try and capture one on camera, your chances are probably better to hit the lottery. You have to consider that the area that the camera frame covers is rather small, maybe a few hundred feet at best, and that is not taking into consideration the fact you are photographing trees and dense foliage. That shrinks the frame depth considerably. I believe most encounters are by chance, and the mistake of the creature to be in the same area as humans. I would imagine their sense of smell and hearing would be fairly acute for their surroundings, and they would hear us coming well in advance, and avoid contact. Of course there is the flip side of the coin, and they are curious. This may be what causes some encounters. But it still sadly remains, hundreds of millions of acres, and cameras with small view fields will not produce any substantial results on average. You just gotta get lucky. The Patty film is exellent, shows muscles etc. Why is this not accepted as proof?
Old Dog Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Why are there no good photos or videos of BF? Why do they avoid cameras? I don't think they really do. Let's consider this. There are over 736,000,000 acres of forest land in the U.S. even if you deployed hundreds or thousands of cameras to try and capture one on camera, your chances are probably better to hit the lottery. You have to consider that the area that the camera frame covers is rather small, maybe a few hundred feet at best, and that is not taking into consideration the fact you are photographing trees and dense foliage. That shrinks the frame depth considerably. I believe most encounters are by chance, and the mistake of the creature to be in the same area as humans. I would imagine their sense of smell and hearing would be fairly acute for their surroundings, and they would hear us coming well in advance, and avoid contact. Of course there is the flip side of the coin, and they are curious. This may be what causes some encounters. But it still sadly remains, hundreds of millions of acres, and cameras with small view fields will not produce any substantial results on average. You just gotta get lucky. The Patty film is exellent, shows muscles etc. Why is this not accepted as proof? I don't think any photo will be accepted as proof positive. The best one can hope for from a photo of the quality of the PGF, is that it will cause a more concentrated discussion and a more earnest search in a particular area. I for one wouldn't spend a minute of my time looking in an area that the only thing you had to go on was a moving dot a few hundred yards away. It could be anything or anyone. I have seen a few that have piqued my interest, and I have followed up on them when possible, but they are a handful from thousands.
Guest Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 Why are there no good photos or videos of BF? Why do they avoid cameras? I don't think they really do. Let's consider this. There are over 736,000,000 acres of forest land in the U.S. even if you deployed hundreds or thousands of cameras to try and capture one on camera, your chances are probably better to hit the lottery. You have to consider that the area that the camera frame covers is rather small, maybe a few hundred feet at best, and that is not taking into consideration the fact you are photographing trees and dense foliage. That shrinks the frame depth considerably. I believe most encounters are by chance, and the mistake of the creature to be in the same area as humans. I would imagine their sense of smell and hearing would be fairly acute for their surroundings, and they would hear us coming well in advance, and avoid contact. Of course there is the flip side of the coin, and they are curious. This may be what causes some encounters. But it still sadly remains, hundreds of millions of acres, and cameras with small view fields will not produce any substantial results on average. You just gotta get lucky. The Patty film is exellent, shows muscles etc. Why is this not accepted as proof? I don't think any photo will be accepted as proof positive. The best one can hope for from a photo of the quality of the PGF, is that it will cause a more concentrated discussion and a more earnest search in a particular area. I for one wouldn't spend a minute of my time looking in an area that the only thing you had to go on was a moving dot a few hundred yards away. It could be anything or anyone. I have seen a few that have piqued my interest, and I have followed up on them when possible, but they are a handful from thousands. I'm inclined to agree with you Old Dog. In this digital age, there is just too much software to manipulate imaging on virtually any level. A live one or a dead one is what it will have to be. Maybe a large piece of one, but nothing else.
Guest LarryP Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 I don't believe the digital recorders are a problem for them. I have researcher friends that have had them pick up recorders and mess with them then put them back down on many occasions. KB That's because they know the difference between a recorder and a camera and their intent.
Guest Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 Why are there no good photos or videos of BF? Why do they avoid cameras? I don't think they really do. Let's consider this. There are over 736,000,000 acres of forest land in the U.S. even if you deployed hundreds or thousands of cameras to try and capture one on camera, your chances are probably better to hit the lottery. You have to consider that the area that the camera frame covers is rather small, maybe a few hundred feet at best, and that is not taking into consideration the fact you are photographing trees and dense foliage. That shrinks the frame depth considerably. I believe most encounters are by chance, and the mistake of the creature to be in the same area as humans. I would imagine their sense of smell and hearing would be fairly acute for their surroundings, and they would hear us coming well in advance, and avoid contact. Of course there is the flip side of the coin, and they are curious. This may be what causes some encounters. But it still sadly remains, hundreds of millions of acres, and cameras with small view fields will not produce any substantial results on average. You just gotta get lucky. Agreed. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. If you just take the acres of National Forest from the Seirras north through Oregon, Idaho and Washington you would need over 3 BILLION train cameras. That's just NF land which is around 70M acres, not private lands, BLM or any other. Take the 736M acres and you can turn that into 30 BILLION cameras. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/37688-where-are-the-trail-cam-videos/page-3
Guest Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 That's because they know the difference between a recorder and a camera and their intent. I'm gonna have to hear more about that theory, since those gadgets have only been around for 20 yrs or so. How about something simple? A lot of forest, not that many BF's. Add to that, they don't know what the gadgets do, but they do know they are left by the hairless ape they go to great lengths to avoid. So, they avoid them. Why take chances?
Guest Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) It was my impression BFs were shy even of just a visual sighting and the only time they came in full view was on moonless nights..and full view then meant I saw a dark mass and amazing eyeshine. As for seeing near IR I do believe they can and did a great amount of work to demonstrate that to myself and you can PM me and I will send you to my data. I agree with Larry P in that they seem to distinguish between a sound recorder and anything that records images. However, my sound recorder would occasionally stop during the night b/c of batteries, and I noticed on those two or three nights the last trip that running footsteps were heard when I rustled slightly awakening in the night. Other nights when the recorder remained operating I do not recall hearing the running (but did have a close up visit while a recorder was running..."blue eyes"). All night recording does produce a lot of information, but they do seem to know when it's on (a small LED although taped over still had some small light), I think we need to consider (sans paranormal stuff) that their intelligence is enough that one observing over time could figure this out and share the news with others. Are they sharing..hey they are getting photos of you, or hey that equipment is meant to uncover us? Do BF have a learned culture, shared thru language (or whatever?) of such complex ideas? I think so, it would explain a lot don't you think? So, it seems they learn and right now those handheld thermals are not so well known or used, lets see if that window stays open..b/c although mine did duck with the thermal..they still remained in view (more than day with a videocam anyway)..... now it would be really freaky if they understood an HD cam in day is bad...but a thermal at night won't convince anyone over 40 yards out. Hard to imagine...but, I will be watching for any changes as more thermal gets out there. Also, a BF knows it's area intimately and if a researcher is in the area they are most likely under observation. My guess is those trail cams are known before their first trigger of flash... Edited May 7, 2013 by apehuman
Guest LarryP Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 That's because they know the difference between a recorder and a camera and their intent. I'm gonna have to hear more about that theory, since those gadgets have only been around for 20 yrs or so. How about something simple? A lot of forest, not that many BF's. Add to that, they don't know what the gadgets do, but they do know they are left by the hairless ape they go to great lengths to avoid. So, they avoid them. Why take chances? Then why have they been known to "pick up recorders and mess with them then put them back down on many occasions", yet completely avoid cameras and any and all video recording devices? There is only one explanation for that behavior. It's the same reason that they avoid people who are hunting or tracking them while carrying cameras and/or firearms.
MarkGlasgow Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 Then why have they been known to "pick up recorders and mess with them then put them back down on many occasions", yet completely avoid cameras and any and all video recording devices? There is only one explanation for that behavior. It's the same reason that they avoid people who are hunting or tracking them while carrying cameras and/or firearms. I think it's best to say that they have been 'reported' to pick up recorders etc. There is more than one explanation in my mind at least. Add hoaxing & misreporting of events to the possibilities. Much more likely than a BF knowing the difference between a lens and microphone.
Guest Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 Have you tried to get fingerprints off these recorders after they have been picked up? I agree, there are more than one explanation for that, to include what Mark suggested.
Guest LarryP Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 Then why have they been known to "pick up recorders and mess with them then put them back down on many occasions", yet completely avoid cameras and any and all video recording devices? There is only one explanation for that behavior. It's the same reason that they avoid people who are hunting or tracking them while carrying cameras and/or firearms. I think it's best to say that they have been 'reported' to pick up recorders etc. There is more than one explanation in my mind at least. Add hoaxing & misreporting of events to the possibilities. Much more likely than a BF knowing the difference between a lens and microphone. kbhunter can address that better than I. But I've heard the same thing regarding recorders from more people than just him. Could care less about hoaxing, because I already know why BF avoid cameras and video.
Recommended Posts