Jump to content
Backdoc

Searching: What Is Required?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

Hey, what are those? Bang. Mountain gorillas discovered.

 

That was Europeans nosing around in Africa. In 400 years of the same occurring in North America, never once has this demonstrably occurred.

 

 

Maybe you haven't seen it yet, kit....but one has been caught on film... :) ...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/BestOfPattyAG3_zps63a3862f.gif

 

 

Try to keep up... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

With an impossible timeline by a huckster conman who along with his sugar daddy claimed the development a secret.

 

Try to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Kit,

 

I see we ended up by a picture of the trash can again.  Interesting take all the way over to the urban sighting.  Had the boy in Virginia been lost by the city in that dumpster area on the photo, I would think he would be found fairly quickly at least on garbage pick-up day.

 

Meanwhile

 

I was hoping to get some skeptic input on post #43 where literally night vision, infrared, helicopters, 1000's of volunteers, tracking dogs and so on where used in a real world search.

 

I am proposing by this Bigfoot- should it exist -would be hard to come by.  I am offering the basis for that conclusion based on the closet actual real world example I can find.  I am curious what basis can be offered by the skeptics the woods are all searched out.

 

 On a side note: Do mountain apes often come into civilized areas like my Yellowstone bears looking through the trash?  I didn't think they did. 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

With an impossible timeline by a huckster conman who along with his sugar daddy claimed the development a secret.

 

Try to keep up.

 

 

I'm way ahead of you, kit....your "work" stays here....and fades here. Mine moves on....and Patty keeps 'walking strong'... :)

 

 

So, what was that "Bombshell" you received from huckster conman Bob Heironimus??? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

What do the skeptics on this link think the total cost of the search for the lost boy in Virginia added up to?

 

Do you think this amount of money, or even a portion of this cost has ever been applied to the search for Bigfoot?

 

Looking forward for the basis of your answer so I can learn from it.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wingman1

I have been waiting for a good time to make my first post and this looks like a good one, so here goes - Backdoc, as for your question of how to search for Bigfoot, I think it is painfully obvious that we are all barking up the wrong tree so to speak. Large groups/expeditions will more than likely scare BF out of the area, and will only at best they may find some evidence. A few days or even weeks are not enough time to track and find one either. The placing of trail cameras dilemma has always intrigued me, and have often pondered the idea whether that they may watching a person attach one to a tree! (which is purely conjecture on my part) Do they know it is a camera? who can definitively say! But if they are as smart as we think they are, and they see a human attaching something to tree, they would most likely avoid that area. It also appears to me that they are nomadic in nature for the most part, and that makes it even more difficult to track them. The ones that are seen are most likely in transit from one area to another.Although I have to concede to the fact that this may not always be the case . To really track and find one, it would be best for a lone tracker to start in an area with very recent sightings and try to determine which direction they might travel (Easier said than done in most cases) Eventually you may find an area where they are foraging for food, and this is where the fun begins because of the amount danger that could be involved, and the tracker will need to determine just what he/she is willing to do. If a bad situation erupts, there is no fight or flight -- It is just flight! The thing to remember is that they will know exactly where you are and may even be or had been in close proximity to you at any point in your journey. This is why it will need to be a long journey in order to allow them to become used to your presence If you have showing respect for the forest, I have a feeling that they will understand that and may decide to approach. You have to give them the advantage and then let them decide on how they want to proceed if you want any chance of making some sort of contact. Hunting them as an animal hasn't been very effective so far and I would have to deduce that they are much more

intelligent than you're ordinary and should be treated as such. Lastly, Trackers will need to check their egos at the front door and come to terms with the fact that they are smarter than us 

in the forest. Of course this is all conjecture and opinion and may not work at all, but definitely worth a try.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Wing,

 

Welcome to the BFF.  Glad to have you and thanks for offering your insight.

 

I mostly agree with the premise.  Roger and Bob got lucky because they went

1) where there was recent activity

2) they were able to be quiet enough since they were on horses vs riding in Roger's VW Bus

3) encountered by a loud stream that covered any noise of the approach and thus could sneak up.

4) with a limited number searching they were able to be quiet in general where 50 boy scouts would have made more noise.

 

That encounter somewhat supports your point.

 

I do have some concerns I would like people to consider:

1) the search for the boy involved not just a group of people moving east to west (driving him further west) but from multiple points.

2) they did have helicopters who could spot things as an eye in the sky.

3) they did have special imaging as well as search dogs who could extend their range.

4) the did have 1000's of volunteers searching from multiple areas.

 

Put another way. if the Bluff Creek region in Oct of 1967 (the day of the PGF) was searched with 1000's of volunteers, search dogs, helicopters, night vision tech., and so on, do you think they would have encountered Patty?   I would say if the resources of the search crew for the Virginia Boy was given 6 days in the PGF day in 1967 with all those resources, they would have found Patty.  They would have stumbled on her multiple times.  In fact, I would suggest once they did they could use cell phones and helicopters and so on to direct the 1000's of people to surround Patty and there would be a Patty with a bullet in her head.  At minimum 100's of those 1000's would have reported seeing patty and a few camera phones might even have video since word would spread and people would take their cameras out and be ready.

 

The difficulty in searching for an area of woods is clear proven by the lost boy example.  The style or method of the search is important as you point out Wing. I wonder what others think of this.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wingman1

Thanks for the welcome Backdoc, much appreciated and I agree with you totally! Roger and Bob did have some unique circumstances that were in place that day and definitely attributed to their success. A stealthy approach with a good amount of background noise is plus! I just wanted to put my thoughts out there first on tracking BF before adressing the meat of your question (I tend to be as long winded in writing as I am when talking). The concerns that you list for consideration are completely valid, I just wonder if anyone would be able able to organize a search of that complexity. The cost alone would scare most of us away! I recently watched a show called Bigfoot: The Further Evidence which is the show regarding a I believe a british doctor that called for as many sample of hair as possible be sent  to him for DNA analysis. He was also the one that proved that the sample of flesh and hair obtained from Justin Smeja was an American Brown Bear and not BF. The gentleman that produced the show and interviewed many researchers and tracker asked one of them why did he not just set up hundreds of trail cameras and flood the area with trackers with all sorts of high tech imaging devices? and his answer was simply -- Money!!! He said that if just one rich person with more money than he/she knew what to do with would put forth a few million,

the answer to everyones question would be quickly answered. There was an incident here in south Texas earlier this year where a young female teacher went missing and a huge search was organized which included local police, sherriff's, and constables along with air support from helicopters and people on horseback. This went on for week over a very large search area and nothing was found. After week or so went by, someone stumbled over a pile of plastic less than 200 yards from the school where the teacher went missing and it turned out to be her body. Now that could be attributed to the ineptness of those searching which in IMO was not the case, or sometimes the

situation does not always favor the searchers. A sad story indeed! but that opens a whole other discussion for another time though, but I think it reiterates your point completely. I will try and locate the news story for you which you can use to hopefully bolster your point. As for whether or not the resources used in the search for the boy would have benefitted the search for Patty? Well, If that had happened we would not be discussing this now would we! Unfortunately I think the tracker is correct, it will take

money or a lot of donated time and equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Wing,

 

I think we agree (not that is ever required anywhere in the BFF). 

 

I go back to a couple of points the skeptics bring out. 

1) The woods are all searched and Bigfoot would have been found by now. Clearly, as evidenced by many searches in the news, skeptics and believers should at least agree the woods have far from been all searched out.  It would take extensive searching to accomplish even a small area.  I am just not satisfied with the dismissive nature of these skeptics on this point.  It is one thing to say for <this or that> reason Bigfoot does not exist in a person's opinion. But if one is basing that opinion largely on an overconfidence of the woods having all be explored, they are way off the mark.  They know it. That is why they mostly avoid serious conversation.

 

2) On the issue of Roger and Bob, we must ask the Q, "what would make it possible to catch a bigfoot on film with a 1967 camera in 1967?"  Then we can consider all the many factors that played in their favor.  Had Patty been 100 yards deeper in the woods, they would stumble across some prints but she would either be hidden or long gone.  It was luck that she was drinking or whatever by the creek that was loud. That position allowed them to be shielded on their approach by the giant overturned tree root mass.  There are many other issues but those are some of the main ones.

 

 

 

In the 1970's there was a Texas Oil man who financed some bigfoot searches, and even the search for the Titanic.  Due to the limits of the tech of the day, this lessened any chance of success.  I like the idea of trail cameras.  Like most factors in life, money is the limiting resource.  We need another Texas oil man or other person willing to do such a project of a more extensive search.  One Helicopter involved in the search for the lost boy in VA would be around $2,000 an hour depending on what source one read on the internet.

 

You bring up a great point in your original post on driving the animal away. I would think it is a very good point a group of, say, 50 people coming east to west would drive a shy animal further west.  As you explore the BFF you will find people who actually suggest Patty walking away from Roger that day was 'suspect'  Again, it does not matter that in real world examples animals almost always just walk or trot away from people when the encounter them.

 

I would suggest real world examples are the only thing we have to go on in testing these principles.  Otherwise, it is just guesswork.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

From what I understand BF is pretty adept at avoiding cameras, IMO because the infrared flash they make is visible to nocturnal creatures (most of which don't make a point of avoiding places where there are flashes at night. One thing about BF: they hide, even at night.

 

A more effective strategy IMO would be to equip a very large search party with thermal cameras.

 

In this area they use helicopters with thermal imaging equipment to inventory deer herds. Something like that *might* work also unless there is too much cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Sal,

I agree if such a search party would surround an area and then close in on it. That might work. Obviously the odds would increase with tech designed to see through the Forrest and/or the dark.

This begs the question: How many people are needed to search 1 square mile of Forrest/woods?

10?

1,000?

How many?

How much would thermal imaging help lessen that number?

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

If it is as thick as it can be here in Minnesota, you would need a person every 15 feet or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

From what I understand BF is pretty adept at avoiding cameras, IMO because the infrared flash they make is visible to nocturnal creatures (most of which don't make a point of avoiding places where there are flashes at night. One thing about BF: they hide, even at night.

 

A more effective strategy IMO would be to equip a very large search party with thermal cameras.

 

In this area they use helicopters with thermal imaging equipment to inventory deer herds. Something like that *might* work also unless there is too much cover.

Possibly using an extensive amount of game cams.  Where you would end up making a fence of cameras across a suspected travel route.  

Starting from one end, facing the next camera, close enough as possible to just overlap the next.

 

o = tree < = camera facing  

 

 o<  o<  o<  o<

 

If you didn't have enough range to the next tree then reverse it on the next to fill the void,

 

  o<   o<       >o   >o

Edited by Wheellug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Wheel,

 

I like the point.  In a given area there must be a minimum number of cameras needed.  

 

As far as placement or line of sight, the more cameras the more angles covered. 

 

I have no idea the cost per camera and the amount of battery life they might have. Once again, money is the constraining resource.  

 

We can agree in order to catch a rare animal or a Bigfoot on camera, you would need at least 1.  Thus the number needed would be between 1 ------>    X   The Question  is, is X   5 or 50 or 200 or what?  That is a discussion worth having.  Unlike a guard at a post, a camera would have a narrow line of sight.   A guard posted every 25 yards could still look around left and right and so on and respond to noise.  If such a guard had a camera on them they could take a picture.  A mounted trail camera would be limited on a mostly straight away view. More views would require more cameras at each point.  Thus, it may take several cameras at just one point to 'see' in all the directions one person would.  Then you would have to place more of them a short distance away at the next point and so on and so on.

 

I am willing to bet whatever the largest bigfoort search attempted with cameras, it involved a small number of cameras in a very small area only. Even 100's of cameras would only cover a small area of a massive forrest.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

There's no reason to believe that game cams are going to provide confirmation of an animal whose numbers are small; that may have good reason to avoid any area of sporadic, unpredictable human activity; and whose habits aren't a matter of common record yet.  Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×