Sunflower Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 My avatar is a crop from a pic from a game cam that is sitting right in the middle of a friend's yard. She did not try to hide it. They knew it was there and walked around it, they hid in the bushes in front of it. The arm was reaching out, we believe, to purposely make the game cam snap the pic in the afternoon LOL. You can't hide the cameras, they know...............duh!
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) The Hovey photo was actually taken manually by someone and I believe the creature seen in the Jacob's photograph is likely a bear with mange. If trailcams worked, there should be some good photos of Bigfoot by now, but there doesn't seem to be any. Edited July 9, 2013 by OntarioSquatch
Guest Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 You can't hide the cameras, they know...............duh! In areas where they are habitually present, I don't disagree with this. IMO, in X, we can't make any movements and assume we're not being observed. At least not this time of year when the trees and bushes are leafed in and they have cover. If they're around, they're curiously watching. That's one of the things we believe we've learned. Any activity that takes longer than a few seconds (like placing camera) will surely be seen.
hiflier Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Hello All, Disappointing to hear but I can appreciate the reality of what you've determined through your experienced use of the devices. I sleep like a rock when I camp and have always wondered what goes on outside the tent when I'm "out". I can see the use of one or two to monitor approaches to the camp as a way satisfying that interest. I'm going to be in the Bigelow Preserve in Maine at the end of this month for three days. In Sept. I will be spending two weeks ("living in the dirt" as my spouse likes to call it, LOL) further "down East" in a sparsely populated state park on the ocean. Beautiful place on the ocean with Bald Eagles, Great Horned Owls, coyotes, ruffed grouse and other residents. It's an extremely quiet time that we thoroughly enjoy- good weather, no bugs, everyone's kids in school and my spouse's favorite- HOT showers. We have a Golden Retriever and a beamy canoe. It IS the life! A trail cam or two would be kind fun to have on the trip for personal use and I wish I could afford a couple of good ones.........someday maybe. My two kids (30-somethings) would probably enjoy them too and seeing whatever results I might obtain. I'll give it some serious consideration. Thanks for your candidness on the subject. P.S. One would think that the credibility of the camera's owner would go a long way in any debates. There is another thread around here somewhere that discusses just that- credibility. If a pic comes from a vetted source the dialogue may fare a bit better - only a bit mind you for the same reasons already mentioned in this thread Edited July 10, 2013 by hiflier
hiflier Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Hello All, The thought crossed my mind I could save myself about $300 if I saved my tin cans and a coupla hundred feet if kite string......well, you get the picture. Then just get up with a spotlight and check out the source of the racket. String the rig about 4-5 feet up around the perimeter and go nite-nite. Cheap security especially if strung 20-30 yards from camp. Edited July 10, 2013 by hiflier
hiflier Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Hello All, Ooooooo I'm liking these for isolated camping with the family: http://www.smarthome.com/251SP/Mr-Beams-Motion-Sensor-LED-Spotlight/p.aspx
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I believe that the majority of trail camera evidence available is hoaxed, or like the Jacob's photo, is something else entirely. When there is nothing but fur or hair in the picture, it is next to impossible to tell what we are looking at. And the picture that someone linked above, the behind shot of the upper torso, I believe to be a hoax. I actually just finished talking about why trail cameras don't capture bigfoot in the new Les Stroud thread, so I won't reiterate those arguments at this time. I will say however that you are on the right track. Something I haven't mentioned in a while is the idea that one should not attach cameras, unnatural objects, to natural objects, as this will likely arouse suspicion from the potential subject. But, if there is something completely unnatural to begin with, will that honestly help in allaying the inhibitions of any sasquatch? So, I would have to agree with your idea that HIDING a camera, or rather disguising it, as a natural object, would be the best way to go. But, if I were you, I would completely de-scent everything that you are going to use. Whatever deer hunters use may work. It may not be as good to simply remove most of the scent of something, as it would be to make it smell more like whatever it is being masqueraded to be. I think sasquatch often first notice things because they smell unnatural. They probably have an acute sense of smell, and it is likely much better than ours. So that would cause it to wonder what is going on, and may alert its other senses to looking for something that is not supposed to be there, or cause it to simply vacate the area completely. I would also de-scent yourself when placing the cameras as well. What you could do, if you have the stomach for it, is to find a dead animal and place it nearby. Of course you wouldn't want to do that if you are attempting to lure them in with some type of scent, which is imo one of the best methods to increase one's odds. I would prefer using the smell of meat cooking, as what better way to interest a sasquatch who is likely constantly looking for food? Having your camera go undetected is only half the battle though, considering that a sasquatch still needs to pass within the narrow window to allow a pic to be snapped. And another problem, which I think may have been raised by certain pieces of evidence, is the fact that sasquatch walk quite fast. IF they are simply strolling by, the picture might only show a blur of fur or hair, or simply a blur. There are two ways to remedy this imo...first, either the camera needs to have a much wider field of view, or we need to increase the chances that a sasquatch will stop within the viewfinder of the camera. So if anyone can show me how to control an 800 lb. sasquatch, I will show you how to get a picture of one. Seriously though, I still think food is the best bet. BUT, I am wondering whether or not a sasquatch would be suspicious if a freshly cut steak were laying out on the forest floor. IF another animal didn't ****** it up first. Therefore, a better method may be to just stake a live chicken in a certain area, using something like fishing string, which is clear, although it probably wouldn't matter. You may go through quite a few chickens before it is a sasquatch that comes to take it, but I think it may be a viable, and profitable, method. This is the kind of stuff that ordinary researchers are not doing. I should say as well that most of what I present in these types of threads are basically brainstorming. If I knew someone were going to go out and utilize a certain method, and had a certain strategy, or if I was going to do so, I would completely trim down these types of ideas into something that is not so broad. But I firmly believe that one should not take any chances. This is why one should use scents, or cover scents, because even if sasquatch cannot smell worth a crap, it is better to have as many bases covered as possible. Yet here we are, how many decades after "mainstream" sasquatch research began, and the best method of capturing sasquatch evidence is STILL to get lucky. This is not acceptable in my opinion, and therefore I believe that serious field researchers should begin doing things that have not been done before, because they may just hit on something that actually works more often than chance. IF it takes a while, so what? Think of how long it will take to sit there and wait to get lucky. It could never occur. And this is partly why I am constantly speculating about sasquatch behavior, based on sighting reports and other evidence. Even if some of this evidence is not accurate or authentic, I feel that by hypothesizing within the limits of probability, I may just hit on something that will work. The ideas and methods can always be pulled or trimmed back, but before that occurs, think big, be innovative, and take calculated risks. I suppose it is up to each individual researcher to interpret what that means for them, but I can guarantee that this is a piece of the sasquatch formula that will ultimately bring success. If you, OP, or anyone else would ever like my opinion on any aspect of research, just message me, as I would be glad to give it. I cannot claim that I am correct in my views, and in fact the only aspect of sasquatch that I know to be fact is the fact that they exist. But I can definitely offer insight into novel methods, or can help expand on ideas that others develop. This should be a big part of what the community is about in my opinion. So whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best of luck. You may just collect the most compelling sasquatch evidence to date. And like I always say...if you find a baby sasquatch, ****** that sucker up and run as fast as you can.
Guest Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I was thinking I could try to de-scent the camera by rubbing the unit with sandpaper and working dirt into the rough surface, I don't know if this would get rid of the plastic smell though.
BobbyO Posted July 10, 2013 SSR Team Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Edited Edited July 10, 2013 by BobbyO
Guest Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Make a pine box for the cam innards. Problem mostly solved. Ill do it for $50.00. Use natural pigments to stain/blend into tree.
Guest Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Okay, so do any of you guys think that attaching a couple of these scent wafers could mask the plastic smell of the trail camera? http://www.cabelas.com/product/Hunting/Scents-Scent-Eliminators/Scents-Scent-Eliminators|/pc/104791680/c/104766480/sc/104556780/Hunters-Specialties-9-Pack-Earth-Scent-Wafers/745038.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Fscents-scent-eliminators%2F_%2FN-1100116%2FNs-CATEGORY_SEQ_104556780%3FWTz_l%3DSBC%253Bcat104791680%253Bcat104766480&WTz_l=SBC%3Bcat104791680%3Bcat104766480%3Bcat104556780
Guest Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Okay, so do any of you guys think that attaching a couple of these scent wafers could mask the plastic smell of the trail camera? http://www.cabelas.com/product/Hunting/Scents-Scent-Eliminators/Scents-Scent-Eliminators|/pc/104791680/c/104766480/sc/104556780/Hunters-Specialties-9-Pack-Earth-Scent-Wafers/745038.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Fscents-scent-eliminators%2F_%2FN-1100116%2FNs-CATEGORY_SEQ_104556780%3FWTz_l%3DSBC%253Bcat104791680%253Bcat104766480&WTz_l=SBC%3Bcat104791680%3Bcat104766480%3Bcat104556780 Make a pine box for the innards. Put the box up without the camera in it so they get used to it, for a year, then put the camera in it and do whatever the people that took the rear view photo closeup of the squatch did for a camera, as they actually got one on (film). Make the pine box a bird box below it. All sorts of stuff you can do. I'll do one for $65.00
southernyahoo Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Or a Bigfoot baby born with defects? Why don't they ever walk in front of a a Trail cam? Maybe one did, but how would you know?
Guest Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 How about hiding one in a fresh cow paddy? That would cover the plastic smell and conceal the camera at the same time. Just let it dry a little and then throw it against a tree so it sticks. It will look totally natural!
Guest Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 How about hiding one in a fresh cow paddy? That would cover the plastic smell and conceal the camera at the same time. Just let it dry a little and then throw it against a tree so it sticks. It will look totally natural! You don't want to 'cover' the plastic smell, because it still smells! You want to eliminate it entirely. Ok, Pine box that blends in with a tree, only natural tints used will blend in to the background so to speak, $125.00 I would recommend the birdhouse with it.
Recommended Posts