southernyahoo Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Looks to me like the mountains top out at around 2500 ft above sea level and nearby towns located at lower flatland are at around 600 ft. above sea level. So the tallest mountains are roughly 1900 ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 What were you doing? Game cams? Scouting for same? Just looking around? I'd presume that stuff you've seen in X might heighten the significance of stuff you wouldn't have recognized as significant before. Everything but game cams. Yes, X is like Sasquatch University. What kind of snowfall does X normally get in the winter? I'm not 100% sure, but from what I hear, the area will get a few measurable snowfalls a year but that it usually doesn't stick around. Is it typically snow covered to the extent that a typical Midwestern state / area would be? Nope. Like I said, it doesn't hang around. Also, I suspect there's more ice precip. Is it Dallas / Ft Worth type weather? Or is it north enough to get regular snow fall? I don't think it's like DFW, but I'm not there, either, so I could be mistaken. I think it's more prone to snow, just not as much as states to the north. Bipto, just a quickie if you'd be so kind and following on from PAC's questions, is the general elevation of the area, even county, pretty much the same ? All within say maye 500ft or is there a little more in your areas ? I'm not entirely certain, but I'd expect the total difference in elevation to be well under 1,000 feet. Out west, these are foothills. In Oklahoma, they call them mountains, so I do, too. I think the highest point in the whole state is just under 5,000 feet and the average elevation is about 1,200 or 1,300, so no, nothing like the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Those Kiamichi's do get more rain than Dallas and a bit colder in the winter but plenty darn hot in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Drew have you ever used a thermal imager??? They still can't see past trees branches and leaves. So no it's not harder than it needs to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 There is an apparent and unfortunate disparity between what you can find on the internet and what you can find on the ground. However, even I can find this, another internet link that shows all kinds of heavily forested area in states that "don't have much at all." http://bit.ly/1as0mDV Totally true bipto I have a degree in biology and have lived in ok most of my life. It's is more than plausible that's large primate or undiscovered animal could thrive down southeast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Here's the thermal unit we purchased: 8701329460_2c6672180c_c.jpg And here's one of the cameras mounted to a wood shed: 8700074241_02c40fb3fe_c.jpg Bipto can we see more of the set up that you guys have out there??? That would be inspiring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I had a really weird thought the other day whilst watching a Documentary on Discovery..... Naturalists have been able to get some really impressive footage of Tigers by giving remote cameras to elephants.... Now there is a disting lack of pachyderms in X, but has anyone ever considered attaching a small camera to Game such as deer etc.... It would have the advantage of not being tied to one place and there would be a million to one chance of getting footage of the big guy taking down his lunch if they were all herding when it happened..... feel free to shot me down in flames if this is an idiotic suggestion....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I'd imagine the deer would run off when senses danger rather than stay and get footage. What I'd like to know though is how one would get the camera back from the deer at the end of the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Hello Oxnard Montalvo, Why not skip the deer step and stick one directly onto a Sasquatch. Much time and quesswork could be eliminated. I hope you know I'm teasing here I like the idea actually. Using a fawn perhaps as a decoy seems cruel but retrieving the data might be easier.....um.....unless one ends up having to follow the Sasquatch around with a strainer of sorts or some such device.....like an oversized poop bag LOL. Throw a transmitter into a Zagnut? Someone around this joint keeps mentioning that particular snack as maybe a favorite? BTW welcome to the BFF. Edited September 1, 2013 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 There are plenty of potential problems.... I guess I was just idly speculating... Maybe a GPS to retrieve the camera? Or even a camera that transmitted to an Internet connection, the stream from which could be recorded and sorted through at lesiure....... I guess it's less about the deer getting spooked rather than the big fella who probably doesn't bat an eyelid or hide at the first sight of bambi...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Hello Oxnard Montalvo, Good follow up. I'm older and in all seriousness do forget the technology we now have. Locating and tranquilizing the deer seems doable when you put it that way. It might be better then to mount two. One forward and one aft. Or a 360 degree capable unit. Wouldn't have to be a night set-up either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Hi Bipto, Thanks for taking the time to answer all these questions. Also, love the Bigfoot Show podcasts! After reading through this thread over the past couple of days I had a thought about the wood apes avoiding the trailcams. As it seems to be the case that they know where the cams are and avoid them, have you folks thought about using camera placement to try to direct them where you want them? Kind of like, if you put cameras in area A and B you could attempt to concentrate activity in area C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) Hello Vlad, THAT'S the kind of thinking that pays off: Being a part of the solution. Good work. Edited September 2, 2013 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 ...have you folks thought about using camera placement to try to direct them where you want them? Kind of like, if you put cameras in area A and B you could attempt to concentrate activity in area C. To a certain extent, yes, but we've sold most of our cameras in order to raise funds for other equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted September 5, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted September 5, 2013 I'm not entirely certain, but I'd expect the total difference in elevation to be well under 1,000 feet. Out west, these are foothills. In Oklahoma, they call them mountains, so I do, too. I think the highest point in the whole state is just under 5,000 feet and the average elevation is about 1,200 or 1,300, so no, nothing like the west. Cool, thanks for clarifying bip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts