Faenor Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 What the heck are you going on about. Crime is caught on camera all the time. Even justin beiber was caught egging a house due to being video surveillance. Not all crimes will be caught on video or with a motion activated camera but a lot do. No clear bigfoot pictures or video have been caught on motion activated or remote cameras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 What the heck are you going on about. Crime is caught on camera all the time. Even justin beiber was caught egging a house due to being video surveillance. Not all crimes will be caught on video or with a motion activated camera but a lot do. No clear bigfoot pictures or video have been caught on motion activated or remote cameras So because justin bieber is dumb, and got caught doing something stupid, bigfoot should also be caught on camera if its real? Okayyyyy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 So because justin bieber is dumb, and got caught doing something stupid, bigfoot should also be caught on camera if its real? Okayyyyy... Yes exactly thats my point Justin beiber got caught so bigfoot should as well Criminals have been caught on remote cameras. Crimes have been caught by remote cameras. Bigfoot has not. If you want to do the math to determine what percent of crimes are caught on remote camera against crimes that were not captured you will most likely get a low percentage. If you do the same math for bigfoot sightings against bigfoot remote captures you get 0. It doesn't mean bigfoot doesn't exist but it certainly should raise concerns about the existence or at least whether the beast remains extant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 ^^^ Let's see, if that were so, it would apply everywhere and it would explain a lot of things: “1,183,700 violent crimes were committed at American public schools during the 2009-2010 school year.†The lack of game camera footage and the excuses why there is that lack of footage is perhaps the major telling blow against the existence of crime. A game camera will do the job for free day and night 24/7. Furthermore the game camera will do the job without a mind confusing the issue. Is not more rational to conclude that game camera footage of Crime does not exist because there is no Crime to capture on those cameras? Therefore no crimes exist ... never mind the fact that less than a third were ever reported to law enforcement. There are direct similarities in the way people report things whether it be Bigfoots or crime, people are people yet, people know that is true. Despite the availability of technology things occur that are never caught on video, as illustrated above nor are they always reported. We cannot infer something doesn't exist simply because I (you) or others have never experienced a particular something yet ... If cameras were the end all answer to everything there would be no crime either! Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/1183700-violent-crimes-committed-public-schools-only-303900-reported-police Plenty of crime is caught on cameras just about everywhere in the US and more so in Canada and UK. I spent years collecting the imagery and converting it to DVD for trials. It is such a plentiful form of evidence that police departments have entire departments dedicated to indexing camera locations, retrieving data and video tape, archiving it all and making same available for prosecution and defense. I agree with your statement that there are similarities to the reporting of bigfoot and crimes. It is my opinion that many of the indicators of false reporting hold true with both, hence the usefulness of the false reporting profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Plenty of crime is caught on cameras just about everywhere in the US and more so in Canada and UK. I spent years collecting the imagery and converting it to DVD for trials. It is such a plentiful form of evidence that police departments have entire departments dedicated to indexing camera locations, retrieving data and video tape, archiving it all and making same available for prosecution and defense. I agree with your statement that there are similarities to the reporting of bigfoot and crimes. It is my opinion that many of the indicators of false reporting hold true with both, hence the usefulness of the false reporting profile. Hold My Beer, Good post. That was my point exactly! Yes there are a number of crimes where criminals are caught on camera but woefully smaller than the number cameras deployed, and many more crimes occur in spite of cameras for which criminals are never caught or identified. There were an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras now deployed in the United States, and that was in 2009. Crime rates for the same period are somewhere between 1.1- 2.2 million. Moreover, I postulated that in comparison many more (maybe in the millions) people and commercial businesses utilize security cameras than are deployed out in the backwoods hinterlands where Bigfoot researchers typically head, and yet, they capture or secure suspects in a fracture amount despite using cameras ... Furthermore, the argument that no Bigfoots are ever found on camera is flawed in my opinion for that reason. Maybe if there were 30 or 60 or 100 million cameras in the woods we would see more than a trickle of videos and with better quality. Source: Surveillance Society: New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You, September 30, 2009 http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a2398/4236865/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 21, 2015 Admin Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) I think I made this point at the beginning of the thread, but it's been going on for so long, I think it's worth making again. BF is not a carnivore. It is thought to be an omnivore. So the fact that carnivore traps haven't captured a pic of BF is not surprising at all. Also, there are many instances in which even carnivores will not eat dead animals, much less pieces of rotting meat laying around for weeks. They will only consume animals they killed themselves. We have baited camera traps with meat and never captured a bear, then hung apples from a tree and they go nuts trying to get them. Bear-climbs-tree.mp4 Edited February 21, 2015 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Good point … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) So because justin bieber is dumb, and got caught doing something stupid, bigfoot should also be caught on camera if its real? Okayyyyy... So I hung a game cam in my back yard and haven't gotten any bigfoot on it. Therefore bigfoot must know how to evade game cameras. Certainly it can't be because bigfoot isn't real. Edited February 21, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 21, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted February 21, 2015 I think I made this point at the beginning of the thread, but it's been going on for so long, I think it's worth making again. BF is not a carnivore. It is thought to be an omnivore. So the fact that carnivore traps haven't captured a pic of BF is not surprising at all. Also, there are many instances in which even carnivores will not eat dead animals, much less pieces of rotting meat laying around for weeks. They will only consume animals they killed themselves. We have baited camera traps with meat and never captured a bear, then hung apples from a tree and they go nuts trying to get them. Was it rotten meat? Big difference apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 So I hung a game cam in my back yard and haven't gotten any bigfoot on it. Therefore bigfoot must know how to evade game cameras. Certainly it can't be because bigfoot isn't real. Or it could be because there just aren't that many of them and the odds are low that one would step in front of a game cam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Or, an option that is not usually considered in these forums, that the sasquatch existed at one time but are now gone or essentially gone. Again, my opinion is the reporting has changed. When was the last time someone claimed an encounter, got images of what they claimed, got footprint casts, reported the encounter to anyone that would listen within a few hours, and revealed the location such that it was reviewed by others within 72 hours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Or it could be because there just aren't that many of them and the odds are low that one would step in front of a game cam. The numbers issue does not add up no matter how you slice it. If there are a lot of them then they get seen often. If they are scarce then not seen often. But the sighting database indicates that yes they are seen often which implies they are plentiful. So how does something plentiful avoid all forms of positive detection? At what pointy does the numbers game break down entirely? Is bigfoot super rare and not widespread or is it rare and not widespread? If it is the latter then the near universal scattering of sightings must be not what they are claimed to be. Nothing adds up to there being something real out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 25, 2015 Admin Share Posted February 25, 2015 Often is a relative term. Washington State for example, there are about 550 sightings since 1880, thats four per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) It is a numbers game IMO, game cams "reliably" cover up to about a thousand square feet. The same thousand square feet, for only as long as the bats last or memory isn't full of wind triggered nothings. A hiker, dog walker, anyone "out there" is surveying a different thousand square feet about every 10 seconds, out for a three hour ramble? Thats covered about a thousand times more ground than a game cam, therefore thousand times more likely to see something than get it on one fixed cam. Which can explain the frustration of researchers in known hotspots, "I get a sighting every 5th time I go, they're THERE! But I can't get a gamecam shot!" Yup, them's the odds. Also total coverage area of all gamecams isn't really a heck of a lot. there's ~28 Million square feet in a square mile, thorough coverage, one cam per thousand square feet, 28,000 cameras, which means if there's 28 million trailcams in the field, they may cover a thousand square miles, but that's about 0.01 percent of North America, to use presumed amount of deployed game cameras to say there's no BF is like drawing a penny sized circle on a picnic table and saying, "By the lack of ants in this circle, no ant is crossing, will cross, or has ever crossed, crawled on, or otherwise transited this picnic table" Then also is the placement issue, if the intention is to see deer, they're set up for deer, it's not necessarily a one sized trap fits all thing. In the assertion that game cams set up for X catch everything, I'm thinking of that as equivalent to a statement along the lines of.. "Oh, an elephant has escaped from the circus? Not to worry, with an average of 3 mousetraps, 10 roach traps, one sheet of flypaper per household in this metropolis, it will soon be caught!" But they're watching all the time! Untrue, besides battery issues, full memory issues, and just plain forgetfulness on the part of hobbyists servicing them, hunters typically only deploy them a few months a year to get sense of deer availability and movement right before hunting season. Might be a few percent of those fielded cameras "professionally" serviced, and high availability, but in general I think it's going to be 25% or less availability. Edited February 25, 2015 by Flashman2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted February 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2015 Then also is the placement issue, if the intention is to see deer, they're set up for deer, it's not necessarily a one sized trap fits all thing. . Last summer I had two identical cameras out about 200 feet apart, one on a rocky ridge with heavy cover, one in a more open "pocket" meadow. Aside from deer ... probably the same deer ... there was NO overlap in the list of species recorded. One had a ton of deer and one coyote. The other had quite a lot of deer, but also a bear, two wolves, some weasel-like things, birds, and squirrels. Consider what you said to be validated / verified. If we want to capture images of bigfoot on a game camera, we need to know more about their habits so we are setting them up in appropriate locations, otherwise, if we are setting them up for game shots we may not even be relying on luck, we may be doing things entirely counter-productive. In response to something on another thread about game detecting cameras ... that depends on the camera brand. The explanation of the Achilles' Heel of Reconyx cameras was thorough. The alternative ... on the two cameras I had out last summer, and 3 over this past winter, not a single critter appeared to be aware of the camera. I had bear, cougar, and wolves within 10-12 feet of the lens not respond to the sound or IR flash. I have pictures of deer heads within about 6 **inches** of the camera not reacting to it. I had deer bed down for a nap within 4 feet of the camera. Bottom line, not all cameras are equal. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. If I had Reconyx, given the apparent noise, I'd put them very close to running water so the "white noise" would mask the camera sounds and use other brands out in quieter, more open areas. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts