coffee2go Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) People around here use stale donuts and gummi bears by the pound in their bait piles and get immediate interest! Sasquatch love hard candy and pennies too. If people are not getting photos of what is taking these things, I'm pretty sure it's my husband. Edited February 25, 2015 by coffee2go
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 By the way, bit of a specious connection to the camera flash aversion, but Scandinavian legends of trolls have them particularly afraid of thunder and lightning. This may be a glorification of Thor, everything is afraid of Thor, or an astute observation of the natural world. However it does occur to me that anything with big vocal tract, big ears, maybe more sensitive to deeper sounds, might find thunder actually painfully loud. Normal animals, pets, can get pretty freaked out in thunderstorm anyway. However, pets can get used to flash photography, though it does generally startle them a lot when unfamiliar to them, i.e. not exposed to it much. Of course also you have to buy into the idea that troll legends may have been inspired by relict hominids, by observing similarities in rock throwing, mimicry, encountering near creeks (Bridges, it would be where human and creek follower paths cross) etc. Well anyway, just an idea that the flash aversion may induce a fear beyond a simple "look you trigger it a few times and nothing happens" experience, but may relate to "primal" lightning fear.
Cisco Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 So here's another question about the avoidance of cameras... Some people have mentioned that BF avoid cameras because of the noise, flash or other sensory artifact, produced by the camera when triggered. However, in order for them to recognize that a camera causes an unpleasant sensation to their senses, a BF must have experienced this already. In short, in order for the aversion theory to be true, they must have already had an unpleasant encounter with one. This would have resulted in an image being captured. All of the unpleasant effects produced by a game came would have to be experienced, in order to be learned. I suppose some BF may have observed game cams being set off, by other animals, and then learned from these observations. Regardless, it stands to reason that some BF would not be knowledgeable about game cameras and would learn by setting one off. If you subscribe to the aversion theory, its logical to assume one, two or even more BF would get caught by surprise at least once. The scent aversion theory is not consistent with frequently reported behavior, as there's human scent all over the place, including around areas where BF are frequently sighted. While they may not like the flash associated with a camera, there are plenty of reports of BF being illuminated by headlights and flash lights. Since these light sources are constant, I would assume they are even more annoying than a quick flash, yet not enough of an annoyance to stop BF from crossing a road and being spotted. All of the theories mentioned have a certain logic but none really are consistent with other behaviors and circumstances in which BF have been observed. In fact, the only theory that explains the lack of a clear image, from a game cam, is there have been many photos of BF captured, but none have been clear enough for a positive identification. This makes more sense to me than anything else we have discussed. The upside is, if you subscribe to this theory, then its only a matter of time before all things line up and somebody gets a good photo.
Painthorse Posted February 26, 2015 Author Posted February 26, 2015 However, in order for them to recognize that a camera causes an unpleasant sensation to their senses, a BF must have experienced this already. In short, in order for the aversion theory to be true, they must have already had an unpleasant encounter with one. This would have resulted in an image being captured Re: @ Cisco, The above statement.-> There is absolutely no guarantee that the cam is going to trigger in time to catch whatever walks/runs in front of it. Trigger speed, battery strength, yada,yada, yada. If these creatures are as smart as some of us believe them to be and they possibly live in family units, it only takes once to spread the word, per say. That not only goes for the flash but also night time IR. Daytime issues could be just due to avoidance and the sound of the trigger mechanism and prior knowledge of "the thing that lights up the woods at night".
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 If these creatures are as smart as some of us believe them to be and they possibly live in family units, it only takes once to spread the word, per say. That not only goes for the flash but also night time IR. Daytime issues could be just due to avoidance and the sound of the trigger mechanism and prior knowledge of "the thing that lights up the woods at night". If one has to make bigfoot so impossibly smart, social and articulate then forget the idea of a separate species and conclude that they are people. But as people they also need technology and tools none of which is ever reported. Also then toss the PGF because it sure does not show a human as anything human like we are. It shows primitive at best. Once again the only way to accept this is to suspend logic. Logic dictates that they don't show up on game cameras because they are not out there to begin with.
Cisco Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Crowlogic.. you make some excellent points. I do feel that some of the arguments are "tailored" in such a way to make Bigfoot extraordinary in every way. This camera thing bothers me because there's no way that any animal, including humans, could avoid one 100% of the time. There's no sense of smell strong enough to avoid cameras is the wind direction is wrong and no eye sight strong enough to always find them. I happen to believe there's enough evidence to justify the plausibility of Bigfoot but some of the rationalizations are so extreme that they create doubt instead of lending credence. Very simply, there's no logical way to explain why we have not captured multiple clear photos or videos of Bigfoot. All that needs to be said is they're hard to capture on film and nobody knows why. In fact, there are other animals that are hard to spot and none of them have super human powers.
salubrious Posted February 28, 2015 Moderator Posted February 28, 2015 A variable here is the idea that a BF may be just as smart as a human.
coffee2go Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 A variable here is the idea that a BF may be just as smart as a human. Yes, there is that. I still feel that based on my experiences, they might give off a sound outside of our range of hearing that comes from the electronics when the camera is powered on. Similar to a dog whistle, but not necessarily high pitched. The sound could be constant and not related to the shutter or any other mechanical sound. I suppose I could test it on my dogs to see if they react to a camera when I turn it on.
Guest Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Flashes charging, and being held charged, definitely used to make noise, high pitched weeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiii getting higher as they got closer to ready then holding high steady pitch. I only hear them about 3/4 the way there now. Flashes of the type built into cells these days are different than the old xenon strobe and big capacitor type.
bipedalist Posted March 4, 2015 BFF Patron Posted March 4, 2015 Yes, there is that. I still feel that based on my experiences, they might give off a sound outside of our range of hearing that comes from the electronics when the camera is powered on. Similar to a dog whistle, but not necessarily high pitched. The sound could be constant and not related to the shutter or any other mechanical sound. I suppose I could test it on my dogs to see if they react to a camera when I turn it on. http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/229-camera-test Not for Reconyx HC600 according to this study. I think the smell of the plastic is the interest to bears, metal bear boxes or not. As for deer looking into the shutter at digital capture I say some kind of switching noises are at work but perhaps they are not ultrasound or infrasound. This study infers there is nothing though with reconyx noise boxes.
BigTreeWalker Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Prove the Olympic thermal is not a cow? We're all still waiting. Not to mention, DNA from hair samples supplied to Sykes by Derek turned out to be wolf, not BF. Keep it factual and real folks.Factual?! (But not misleading?) http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bigfoot-files/articles/all/usa-hair-samples 25093 – Sample provided by Derek Randles (donated via Jeffrey Meldrum) 1. Date of sample collection: 2011 (precise date unknown) 2. Location of sample collection: Olympic Peninsula, Washington, USA 3. Colour of hair sample: Medium Brown 4. Length of hair sample: c. 100mm 5. Other physical characteristics: Fine thickness and crinkled in appearance 6. Details surrounding sample collection: Collected by Derek from a tree trunk in the Olympic Mountains. The site in question has been investigated by the Bigfoot research group ‘The Olympic Project’. Multiple Sasquatch encounters have been reported in the location, including sightings and acoustic phenomenon such as wood-knockings. 7. Result: Canis, wolf or dog The Olympic thermal was taken in Oct 2013. We shouldn't be stringing unrelated facts together just to prove our points. If you do have a better connection, please post a link. As far as sasquatch not showing up on game cams. There is another large mammal that has been reported in both the Olympics and the GPNF, that to the best of my knowledge, also hasn't shown up on a game cam: wolves. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/reporting/sightings.html Please, don't come back and say, "but they have shown up on game cams elsewhere." I know they have. I have seen the wolf pictures from the Okanogan National Forest when they were first taken. But so far they have been able to avoid the cameras in the two above mentioned areas. This is part of a post I made in another thread: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5116-cascades-carnivore-project-how-do-they-miss-the-bigfoots/page-43 #848 A possible tactic that could be used would be to switch to daytime Plotwatcher type cameras with no flashes and a timer instead of sensors to trigger the cams. They also cover a much larger field of view. Place them across suspected areas of bigfoot travel, higher up (16' or so), as inconspicuously as possible, about 150' apart. With enough cameras to cut across an area of a quarter mile or more. And set them up with cameras facing cameras. About 20 cameras would do it. A little spendy for an individual to do. The higher up part is important. It gets the cameras out of line of sight and scent. There are quite a number of sighting reports from hunters in tree stands. Probably for this very reason. If we can't get any pictures for whatever reason, then maybe we should change tactics. 1
Explorer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The attached link shows a report written back in 2011 by SIR (Sasquatch Investigations of the Rockies) titled The Trailcam Dilemma. http://sasquatchinvestigations.org/bigfoot-research/the-trailcam-dilemma/ It covers anomalies that this team had with trailcams in 2010 and 2013, whereas after a triggering event the videos/photos were whited out. I don't know how common this type of camera problem is. If you read the comments posted at the end of the report, two explanations were offered by different people for the whited out photos/videos. 1) Condensation inside the camera. Someone suggested to check the gaskets in the camera and believed that the whiteout was caused by condensation in the system. "The problem clears and the camera works fine after the condensation evaporates later in the day." 2) "The cameras have a filter that swings back and forth for daytime VS nightime viewing. Early in the morning, the cameras will still be on the nighttime infrared setting, even though there is enough light for daytime viewing. When this happens, you will get pure white pictures, since the filter is letting way too much light in." Has anybody who owns trail cameras encountered this white-out problem too? There were other comments who classified these events as high strangeness and anomalous. I don't own game cameras but was curious if this white-out problem is just a technical glitch or something truly anomalous associated with sasquatch research. It appears to be a technical glitch given that one researcher who was not doing sasquatch research, encountered this white-out problem. But I truly don't know nor am aware if this problem is that common.
Painthorse Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 I've had the complete white out issue with both Stealth and Moultrie cams.
Explorer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Painthorse, Do you have any idea behind what led to the white-out issue on your Stealth and Moultrie camera pictures/videos? Were the white-out issues random technical glitches, repetitive technical glitches (same times/weather conditions), or triggered by Bigfoot presence (per S.I.R. claim/speculation based on alleged evidence of BF signs)? Thanks,Explorer Edited June 28, 2015 by Explorer
Painthorse Posted June 29, 2015 Author Posted June 29, 2015 Explorer, they are random technical issues. If you google "game camera white out pictures" you'll find a slew of people talking about it. Here is another issue I get.........Unfortunately when this happens it affects the video also. With this specific cam it takes one still shot and then followed immediately by a 10 second video.
Recommended Posts