Old Dog Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Here's a direct link to the report Nathan is referring to. http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=12959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 4, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted May 4, 2014 Great report Nathan! Talk about different vocalizations. Researchers can learn from it or at least get some ideas to consider just from the description of the BF behavior. We have so little knowledge of BF behavior that a report like this is a delight to read. BF are used to humans on the ground so there are quite a few tree stand sightings were humans in stands are not noticed. I wonder if the older BF smelled the human but because the observer was motionless could not see him. Lack of much of a neck probably means they do not look up much, just like they have to turn their body to look around much. With aging and sun exposure I would imagine older BF have cataract issues too which would cloud their vision. It almost sounds like the older one knew a human was around but could not see him for some reason or at least did not consider him a threat. I have a location I want to get a plot watcher camera up high in a tree where it cannot be observed or smelled but cannot figure how to do it. RR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 SWWASASQYATCHPROJECT, I also would consider that the since sasquatch unquestionably have great night vision { as noted by night time observations } that the larger one could have been trying to see the man with an arm over his head to reduce the glare and ambient light reaching his larger sensitive eyes. I have done some work with a Plotwatcher pro, I put mine up a larger spruce angled down overlooking a stream and gas route convergence point { travel route meets food and water }, so far I have not gotten anything but I now consider that the area is a bit open and bright so it may not be being used during the day. here is a few pics of how I setup my Plotwatchr Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 4, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Nathan: You could be right about the night vision. One of the reasons I do field work in the day is that I think our eyes might be better in the day than theirs. But their night vision is remarkably better than ours. There is so much evidence that they avoid trail cameras I want it both out of the way up high and camouflaged. I have found an area where they move down to a creek for water. Footprints and with the vegetation worn down I think it is a pretty active area. I am thinking of gluing a bunch of moss on the camera with just the lense opening not covered then somehow put it up too high for them to notice or reach. I have to wait for the spring rains to stop because I don't want the camera wrecked Randy Edited May 4, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightheart Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Nathan, That report is very near Mill Creek where my Grandmother grew up. She once said to me, "There are things in those woods only God in Heaven knows what they are." Her comment reminds me of what the foreman on Coonbo's family farm said. It is almost word for word. Back then there was no general info about what Sasquatch might be. i am sure they did not share much with neighbors since they did not want to be thought crazy. She passed away before I had my first Sasquatch experience in a neighboring county when I was with my Dad. I never got to ask her what she meant by that but that county has had numerous sightings and howls recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 lightheart, interesting for sure, I get odd hints from older woodsman all the time but they never elude exactly as to what they are talking about, I guess they feel that do not sound crazy or nuts if they do not directly point out what makes the sounds. SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT , the plotwatcher is water tight and would be very protected up under a large evergreen of almost any variety. I put mine up about 22 feet and tucked in behind or just over looking limbs and branches, it is very difficult to see. When I came back to collect the unit I had trouble spotting it at 50 feet, I knew exactly where it was, it just was very well hidden against the bark and spruce limbs. If you look at the first pick of that spruce it is tough to see the unit, the second pick was taken at a high optical zoom. I figure these creatures are hyper-aware of their surroundings so I make it a point hide the unit high and out of easy view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Oh, Nate, I would think you would know better....disappointed am I. At best, you would need to take out the infrared and leave it at one minute time elaps triggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Wag, with plotwatchers there is no light of any kind, it is strictly a day light time lapse camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Lightheart you better heed your grandma if you know what's good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 4, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted May 4, 2014 Nathan: Even though the plot watcher is camo colored BF are so used to a non gadget environment I bet they pick up on it immediatelyu . It would be the same as if someone put a camera in my back yard. Just because it is not supposed to be there you would see it immediately. Our brains get used to normal and subconsciously are comparing what we know to anything different. I watched a show about that once. BF are probably even more attune to what is normal in the woods. While they are waterproof any picture taken with a wet lens would be worthless. So why risk loss or damage of the camera. When it rains here it may not stop for days. You should see it pour at the Oregon Coast today. He is correct that plotwatchers do not emit light or have IR triggers and are passive taking pictures at set intervals. Speaking of that, has anyone tried to put an IR camera inside a vehicle in a camping situation in BF country? They might be camera shy but the lights and gadgets on a vehicle might all be meaningless technology to them and if not too obvious they might not know what it is. Many reports of muddy hand prints on cars where the BF are looking inside. Might be worth a try when a camera on a tree does not work. RR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 I figure these creatures are hyper-aware of their surroundings so I make it a point hide the unit high and out of easy view. If it were me putting the cameras up I wouldn't think to just put them up in the tree. What I would do is over a period of time climb up to the spot you wanted to put the camera but instead of putting up a camera, hang something pretty and neat in the tree(I've got as few of those bamboo windchimes myself, real cheap and have a nice sound), just keep doing it a dozen or so times with different things, hanging windchimes or what not in it or even other nearby trees to make it look pretty normal for you to be climbing trees hanging stuff in them. Then one day just bring the camera up and hang it too. Robert Morgan always gave the advice to figure you were being watched from the moment you left your car to the moment you got back into it to leave the area, better safe than sorry I guess, probably pretty hard to hide anything from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 In my opinion? Unless Scott Nelson reviews any purported tape of any "chatter" sounds, I would not credit it none. There are folks who are experts in their chosen fields, and on language, Mr. Nelson is one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 In my opinion? Unless Scott Nelson reviews any purported tape of any "chatter" sounds, I would not credit it none. There are folks who are experts in their chosen fields, and on language, Mr. Nelson is one of those. Tbh I think the only thing Nelson can do with any Chatter clips is go "Yeah, sounds like the same thing", or "Yeah, that sounds like talking", i've never seen him do anything anyone else couldn't do. People are to easily starstruck by credentials and education...Even when he tries to imitate what is being said it is just completely cringeworthy, his expertise doesn't give him any special abilities or make him an expert on anything sasquatch related. There are guys on this board who are actually going out into the field, being productive, and getting these things on tape, now THOSE are the guys that make me tip my hat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Xion....couldn't disagree more strongly. YOU may be able to listen to a random and unintelligible string of utterances and tell if they constitute evidence of a language (Not "talking"... a much different and irrelevant description... and if you are able to do that without years of study and specialized training...I've got a feeling the DOD would love to offer you a job) but I certainly don't. Your comment only tells me you've not looked too closely as to just what that entails. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 5, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Xion I agree a bit on what you say from listening to Nelson himself at a conference. I do grant that he is technically qualified to evaluate if something is language. However at a conference I attended, when asked if listening to tapes we could learn that language, he said no. To support your objection on his imitations, he said you could have hundreds of hours of recording, and without face to face contact with the speaker and some sort of context to the speech, you could never learn the language. So the question in my mind at that point, is why attempt to speak an unknown language to an unseen speaker when you have absolutely no idea what you are saying? You could be encouraging one of them to allow the other to eat you for all you know. RR Edited May 5, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts