2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[SWWASAS]

Dozens of BF witnesses are hunters who absolutely refuse to ever hunt again.    I would say that has changed them forever.    There is something about one minute being the most dangerous thing in the woods and after an encounter realizing that is not true.

[norseman]

1. I know you have never experienced infrasound, I have. Not only did I experience it I recorded it. I have digital data that shows something produced infrasound, and probably explainable better with BF than lions or tigers in the PNW.2. What does a tiger have to do with BF even if a tiger uses infrasound?3. I have been within 20 feet of a bear and did not hear it's footsteps at all. Even though a bear may weigh as much as a BF, it's weight is distributed on all 4 feet so that would explain the difference in footstep noise level.4. I have been within 30 yards of a BF coming through the woods towards me and just that foot step sound was loud enough to scare the hell out of me.5. To assume MIB has a medical condition that mirrors infrasound is a skeptic like stretch of logic. But then again like skeptics don't believe in BF you don't believe in infrasound.

I know infrasound is real, and I use the Tiger as an example because it has been studied and proven to exist within a Tiger roar. However it is yet to be seen if a unknown primate in the Pacific Northwest uses it as it is described to be used, which seems to lack vocalization being apart of the infrasound. Its not logical to me that Bigfoot has a silent laser beam that he can shoot at humans and make them ill. I would like to see more studies of known animals and how infrasound can be produced like this.

How did you record infrasound and how do you know for a fact a Bigfoot produced it?

I have the bossburg tracks hanging in my shop next to a Grizzly bear track. Four bear paws roughly equals the same surface area as two Bigfoot feet IMO.

Again I'll ask? What makes you think you were 30 yards from a Bigfoot walking towards you? Did you see it or find tracks?

[gigantor]

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, I have to agree with Norseman.

 

If you have a recording of infrasound phenomena, please post it so we can examine it, or stop making such claims, otherwise it's ungentlemanly.

 

----

 

As far as the camera concealment and animals being able to detect them issue...  it only matter for filmmakers whose goal is to document the animal's behavior, they want to record the animal as it lives in nature. Think BBC or Nature documentaries.

 

For our purposes, we just want a pic or video of the animal, it matters not whether the animal discovers the camera, as long as it's on "film". So I find the effort of concealing cameras a waste of time and a distraction, even an excuse. Just get the subject on film.

Edited May 16, 2015 by gigantor

[SWWASAS]

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, I have to agree with Norseman.

 

If you have a recording of infrasound phenomena, please post it so we can examine it, or stop making such claims, otherwise it's ungentlemanly.

 

----

 

As far as the camera concealment and animals being able to detect them issue...  it only matter for filmmakers whose goal is to document the animal's behavior, they want to record the animal as it lives in nature. Think BBC or Nature documentaries.

 

For our purposes, we just want a pic or video of the animal, it matters not whether the animal discovers the camera, as long as it's on "film". So I find the effort of concealing cameras a waste of time and a distraction, even an excuse. Just get the subject on film.

I have posted it.   There is a whole thread on it.   I don't see any reason to post all that again.    The Thread is titled "Infrasound Event Preliminary Report"     Unreal!   Skeptics rule I guess!    I think an apology is in order. 

Edited May 16, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[SWWASAS]

I know infrasound is real, and I use the Tiger as an example because it has been studied and proven to exist within a Tiger roar. However it is yet to be seen if a unknown primate in the Pacific Northwest uses it as it is described to be used, which seems to lack vocalization being apart of the infrasound. Its not logical to me that Bigfoot has a silent laser beam that he can shoot at humans and make them ill. I would like to see more studies of known animals and how infrasound can be produced like this.

How did you record infrasound and how do you know for a fact a Bigfoot produced it?

I have the bossburg tracks hanging in my shop next to a Grizzly bear track. Four bear paws roughly equals the same surface area as two Bigfoot feet IMO.

Again I'll ask? What makes you think you were 30 yards from a Bigfoot walking towards you? Did you see it or find tracks?

I don't know if the infrasound was produced by a bigfoot because I did not see what produced it,  but why would you think it requires a silent laser beam when the tiger you mentioned does not need that.    If the infrasound I recorded was produced by an animal, what North American animal produces infrasound capable of producing physiological effects on humans?   That has been commonly reported by people having bigfoot contact.    Rather than tag some unknown to science, producer of infrasound in North America, logic and even common sense would have me suggest that BF might be the source.    Meldrum even suggests this in his book.    There is an entire thread that you should have read by now on my experience with infrasound.   Read that then ask questions.  

 

The 30 yards is based on me examining the location where the footsteps stopped,  I heard a giant thud as I believe the BF smelled or saw me and went into a crouch,  and 15 seconds later did a rapid wood knock.      When I went into the location where all these sound came from I found the forest soil disturbed.     That is how I determined the distance.   This has all been previously reported by me several times.

 

Finally this exchange points out quite plainly that for some people with  skeptic issues,  the problem seems to be reading retention.    They ignore entire threads,  and ignore previous reports from individuals.     

Edited May 16, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[SWWASAS]

I have the bossburg tracks hanging in my shop next to a Grizzly bear track. Four bear paws roughly equals the same surface area as two Bigfoot feet IMO.

 

 I am sorry I did not address this part of your statement as I did not understand it but you have made my argument for me. 

 

1.   There are no Grizzlies in this part of WA so it is unlikely that a black bear would weigh what an adult BF weighs, assuming BF sighting reports and weight estimates are correct.    

2.   If 4 bear paws equal the same surface area as a subject bipedal BF  (I will take your word for that)  and the bear and the BF weigh the same,  the bipedal bigfoot exerts twice the PSI with each step on the ground as each bear footprint if one assumes that the bear puts down one foot at a time and does not gallop somehow or is not walking upright on two feet.      Therefore if one ignores the bipedal nature of the footprint sounds, one would expect the BF footstep to make twice the noise that each bear paw makes impacting the same soil since both have soft feet and each BF footstep exerts twice the PSI as a bear paw does.     

[norseman]

i dont think so because a bigfoot foot has twice the size of foot as one grizzly bear paw.

i think your psi hypothesis is skewed because your only taking into account two legs vs four.

If a large heavy Bigfoot had two smaller feet the size of a bears? Then I would be making your point for you.

18-22 inch feet are ridiculously big. A hind foot of a Griz in more like 11........and even that looks huge in the woods when your by yourself.

I don't know if the infrasound was produced by a bigfoot because I did not see what produced it,  but why would you think it requires a silent laser beam when the tiger you mentioned does not need that.    If the infrasound I recorded was produced by an animal, what North American animal produces infrasound capable of producing physiological effects on humans?   That has been commonly reported by people having bigfoot contact.    Rather than tag some unknown to science, producer of infrasound in North America, logic and even common sense would have me suggest that BF might be the source.    Meldrum even suggests this in his book.    There is an entire thread that you should have read by now on my experience with infrasound.   Read that then ask questions.  

 

The 30 yards is based on me examining the location where the footsteps stopped,  I heard a giant thud as I believe the BF smelled or saw me and went into a crouch,  and 15 seconds later did a rapid wood knock.      When I went into the location where all these sound came from I found the forest soil disturbed.     That is how I determined the distance.   This has all been previously reported by me several times.

 

Finally this exchange points out quite plainly that for some people with  skeptic issues,  the problem seems to be reading retention.    They ignore entire threads,  and ignore previous reports from individuals.

Actually? I do read your stuff and have posted in several of your threads. I do seem to have missed your infrasound thread. You seem like your certainly willing to examine other possibilities like with the grouse drumming incident you had and I was simply doing the same with MIB.

I applaud people strapping on their boots and getting out there. But I do typically go through a giant mundane checklist before I get to the " I dont know box" or the "holy crud its a Squatch" box......

I think infrasound in unknown primates is definitely still in the "I dont know box". And I think people can get pretty worked up and exhibit strange qualities if they think a giant ape is prowling around.

[SWWASAS]

First of all there are no known grizzly where I had my encounter in Clark County.  I hope this makes sense.   Lets forget foot size for this argument and make it simpler and take out that foot size variable.       Lets just assume the bear and the BF just happen to weigh the same thing.    Let me ask you,   unless a bear is galloping and they sort of do that during a charge, when a bear is just walking how many feet does a bear have on the ground at any given time.      Three.    How many feet does a bigfoot have on the ground at any given time when it is walking.   One or most of its weight on one leg.  The one foot will be on the ground when most of the other foot has most of the weight but mostly for balance.  But the P/G film clearly shows the trailing foot off the ground at some point.      If the bear and bigfoot feet are supporting equal body weights,    lets say that each bear foot supports X weight when it is standing still or 4X total.    So each BF foot supports 2X when it is standing on two legs and not moving because both the bear and BF weigh the same in this example.     So at each step the bear is putting X weight on the one foot hitting the ground and each other foot supports X weight for 4X total.      Since they weigh the same, the bigfoot is putting 4X weight on each foot at each step or nearly that much because of the trailing foot maintains some ground contact until it is lifted.  .   Or lets just accept that some of its weight must be supported by the trailing foot or a forward foot that has just barely touched the ground and weight not yet shifted from one leg to the next.     How much Meldrum could probably compute, but lets just accept that the one foot is supporting some of the weight even if most of the weigh is supported by the other foot when a BF walks.       If it waddled side to side and each foot came off the ground alternately then at each foot contact, 4X force or the entire body weight would be put on the ground by each foot in turn.  Actually slightly more than that or the BF would not go anywhere.   It takes energy to move and that energy has to be transmitted to the ground.   But BF don't waddle so somewhere close to 4X force is being applied to the ground at each step.    SInce most of the energy is combating gravity, but some is propelling the BF forward,  perhaps each footfall is very close to the weight of the BF at the moment of foot impact even with the other leg supporting some token amount of weight.   Again that is a Meldrum problem for his grad students.   On the other hand the bear has three feet on the ground at any given time which are propelling it so those propelling feet are not making any noise.   Only the foot moved forward and impacting the ground makes noise.    I know I went to school in a very small town in Eastern Oregon, but we learned that 3 to 4X is more than 1X and the noise of 3 or 4 X force hitting the ground is likely more than the noise of 1X hitting the ground.    

 

If I am wrong tell me how.   

Edited May 16, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

By my way of thinking, if you and I weigh the same? And my feet are twice as big as yours but you walk on all fours? We are roughly the same. we are displacing the same weight over the same square inches.

But the moral of the story is a 1000 lbs Moose has much smaller harder feet than either a Bear or a large primate. If your hearing heavy footfalls in the forest? Its probably an ungulate.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Back to the Camera idea, would it not make more sense to place cameras higher in the trees looking at a downward angle, it seems that 

Sasquatch are not looking for us to be higher in the trees, and it seems to **** them off when a hunter is up a tree stand, I think they get

fooled by that and it really gets their dander up. I do not credit these creatures with the telepathy to know the camera's are present unless

seen or smelled. It seems the little camera I posted has the potential to avoid detection, and that is huge, now we need to learn how to 

employ such a stealthy camera in order to avoid detection, but having listened to Dranginis talk about trying to do that I know it is not an 

easy task.

[BigTreeWalker]

LCB thanks for the link to those cameras. I saw Les Stroud using them and thought they were pretty neat for being inconspicuous. I will be placing a Plotwatcher Pro camera higher up in trees this year. I plan to have my son circle the area where I am positioning the camera just to back anything off from the area that might be watching. Don't know if it will work but it's worth a try. Nothing else seems to.

[SWWASAS]

By my way of thinking, if you and I weigh the same? And my feet are twice as big as yours but you walk on all fours? We are roughly the same. we are displacing the same weight over the same square inches.

But the moral of the story is a 1000 lbs Moose has much smaller harder feet than either a Bear or a large primate. If your hearing heavy footfalls in the forest? Its probably an ungulate.

I have heard elk and deer move and when you hear a BF moving  you will know the difference.  

[gigantor]

I have posted it.   There is a whole thread on it.   I don't see any reason to post all that again.    The Thread is titled "Infrasound Event Preliminary Report"     ....   I think an apology is in order. 

 

i apologize, didn't know you posted it.

[Guest DWA]

The discombobulating effects of what appears to be infrasound have come from reliable sources (one first-hand account, and other compelling evidence, is in Meldrum's book).

 

Regardless the more let us just say highblown theses about what it is how it works and why, evidence for it is definitely there.

Edited May 17, 2015 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

 

The future of Sasquatch research technology?

 

High-tech military goggles combine night vision, thermal imaging

By James Rogers

Published May 05, 2015

FoxNews.com

Facebook151 Twitter106 livefyre40 Email Print

 

 (BAE Systems)

BAE Systems is developing state-of-the-art goggles for the U.S. Army that combine night vision and thermal imaging technology.

The Army has awarded the defense technology specialist a five-year contract worth up to $434 million for the system, which will give soldiers faster and more accurate targeting.  The tech will work in all weather and lighting conditions, according to BAE.

A BAE spokesman told FoxNews.com that the high-tech goggles are expected to be in the hands of servicemembers in late 2016 or early 2017.

At the moment, military personnel rely on two separate devices – night vision goggles and a weapon-mounted thermal targeting sight. This means that soldiers must acquire targets through their goggles and then raise the weapon sight into their field of view. BAE, however, is integrating night vision and thermal targeting capabilities into a single sight displayed on the soldiers’ goggles. A wireless video interface is used to send thermal images from the weapon sight to the goggles.

The company says that the technology will help military personnel acquire targets and engage enemy combatants faster, and also reduces the need for aiming lasers, enabling soldiers to remain hidden longer.

“The ability to conduct surveillance in any light or weather condition increases mission safety and effectiveness,†said Terry Crimmins, BAE Systems’ vice president and general manager of Survivability and Targeting Solutions, in a statement.

 

Working with the U.S Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, BAE is testing the technology as part of the Army’s Enhanced Night Vision Goggle III and Family of Weapon Sight-Individual (ENVG III/FWS-I) program. Development and manufacturing is taking place at a BAE facility in Hudson, N.H.