bipedalist Posted February 26, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 26, 2015 ^ So what are the cameras that are superior to Reconyx then in your experience?! (feel free to post in a gamecam thread or PM me if not germane to this thread).
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Often is a relative term. Washington State for example, there are about 550 sightings since 1880, thats four per year. Try running the numbers on a national basis.
gigantor Posted February 27, 2015 Admin Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I used WA state because those are vetted reports, each read and classified by our volunteers. There are about 6500 vetted + unvetted sighting reports nationally since 1880. That's 49 per year... Edited February 27, 2015 by gigantor
Explorer Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Could it be that to capture a BF on film you need a human present? I believe there are many claims of BF being captured in video cameras (including the PG Film) by an eyewitness, but no claims from a game camera. The filming of a BF video by a human could of course be explained by hoaxes, but there is the far out hypothesis that you need human presence or human consciousness to draw them in or to make them appear. Game camera traps won’t work in that case. The idea is similar to the popular question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make a sound? When all the humans leave the forest, is Bigfoot still there? This hypothesis could easily be rejected by simply showing a good game camera photo/video of a BF.
Guest Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) That goes back to camera on legs covering 1000x as much ground as a gamecam in an afternoon, or 3000x if you make a day of it. Plus, suspicious noise 200ft away... game camera don't care, it stays pointed at it's little patch... higher chance of an "in hand" camera catching a blobsquatch period... Note I say in hand. And preferably powered up. Some of these sightings are so fleeting that 5 seconds is too long to have your camera up and ready to go. Patterson had his cine cam "holstered" on his saddle and practised quick draw "shooting" with it... he was actually prepared for the eventuality of meeting a Sas, any other random film-maker could have easily missed it! I have been unsuccessful thus far in finding a digital cam that I'm happy with in this regard. You can force them to stay on, hung round your neck, but that way you can eat a set of batteries every 2 hours with no result. 5 years back I was carrying a cheap disposable* film cam, whip it out, hit button, but sources of those and processing has dwindled away to nothing. Cellphone cams are so wide angle that they are pretty much destined to get blobsquatches unless you've actually got the breath of the creature at risk of fogging the lens, but even then, procedure with my current android is, fumble it out, slide up unlock screen, wait wait, slide it up again if it didn't go first time, wait wait, slide screen to camera icon, wait, thumb camera icon, wait for it to register, brings cam up, take another second to get something in view, plant thumb on shutter, wait another half second for it to register and take shot... gah. edit: *Yah, I could get a "good" film cam, but later and still functioning varieties of those were electronic enough to be a PITA, gotta wait for brrrrrrrrrrrrrr lens extending, etc. Then if you have an old SLR, you don't really want it swinging around bouncing off logs you're scrambling over etc, which then means you tend to keep it cased, with the lens cap on... that's 2 or 3 seconds more fumble. Edited February 27, 2015 by Flashman2.0
HOLDMYBEER Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 ..........I believe there are many claims of BF being captured in video cameras (including the PG Film) by an eyewitness, but no claims from a game camera. The filming of a BF video by a human could of course be explained by hoaxes, but there is the far out hypothesis that you need human presence or human consciousness to draw them in or to make them appear. Game camera traps won’t work in that case. The population died off before automatic game cameras. Sasquatches were around when technology required humans to take the picture. The reporting behavior has since dramatically changed. Again, 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? We just don't see encounters of that quality anymore.
gigantor Posted February 28, 2015 Admin Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Again, 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? We just don't see encounters of that quality anymore. Is that all? Any other criteria that would meet your satisfaction? Searching our SSR Database, which is incomplete.... yields two reports that nearly meet your demanding criteria if you're reasonable (2010 and 2008). There's probably more among the many which are yet to be classified, and they may be more recent. We're just far behind because of lack of manpower. The following reports score a 10 in our grading model, I didn't even search for a lower score. A score of 9 for example, would also come very close to your demands. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28230 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=24766 Edited February 28, 2015 by gigantor
BigTreeWalker Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I have read this thread from beginning to end and have yet to see a discussion of the cameras themselves. I have no idea how to include these observations as parameters of a mathematical model; but, here are the observations I have personally made in the use of game cams. 1) In my experience, almost all animals are aware of their presence and react in various ways to the cameras. (I know this goes contrary to what MIB stated previously. I have used 5 different brands of cams, none of them Reconyx.) Deer will look at them and then ignore them. Birds and squirrels sometimes appear to be posing for them. Raccoons love to mess around in the light the cameras give off at night. The very first picture I got with one of my cameras was probably a black bear. All that showed was black fur around the edge of the photo. I never did get a full picture of that bear. I've had them lick, move, bite and stare at the camera. Coyotes will run from them at night. All the various cats I have photos of seem indifferent to the cameras. They seem to be the only animal that ignores them. 2) Cameras reveal themselves through noise. I have read two different studies, claiming some make noise and some don't. They reveal themselves when they flash. Be it white or IR light. Some animals act like they can see both frequencies of IR flashes used on these cameras. 3) If you look at a game cam at night with night vision binocs, they stick out like a sore thumb. Even the ones with the factory camo job. Natural camo materials might help this problem. Don't know, never tried it. But, because of number 2 above, it wouldn't matter because the camera reveals itself anyway. 4) If something runs across in front of the cameras, moving fast, all you get is a blur; especially at night. I've gotten lots of blurs or nothing at all because whatever triggered the cam moved out of the field of view before the camera triggered. The animals don't have to know how a camera works or even what it is to avoid it if they choose to do so. If we are throwing out all supposed pictures of bigfoot, calling them hoaxes, then we are skewing what data we may have to help calculate taking game cam pictures of them. 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. Of course, if they only move at night, no pictures. If they find the cameras and it matters to them to stay clear, no pictures. If they are watching you, they may avoid the area, no pictures. And, for the skeptical, if they don't exist, no pictures. ;-) One thing for sure is that the current tactics aren't working. It does bother me that we can't get any pictures of an extant animal, no matter how woods wise it is.
Guest Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) I used WA state because those are vetted reports, each read and classified by our volunteers. There are about 6500 vetted + unvetted sighting reports nationally since 1880. That's 49 per year... Good post G. That’s a lot of hallucinations! (Said tongue in cheek) It does give me cause to wonder how many more encounters that were experienced that are never heard of each year and never reported since 1880’s. I don’t believe it would be a stretch to say they did so for the very same reason people are hesitant today. Anybody else add something to that? Edited February 28, 2015 by Gumshoeye
gigantor Posted February 28, 2015 Admin Posted February 28, 2015 I like to read some of the early reports in Tirademan's Historical Archives (which he donated to the BFF before his passing, R.I.P.). For example: 1
BigTreeWalker Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 U.M.A.! Posted on the Cascades Carnivore Project blog site on January 22nd, 2014 under the heading "What is it?"... http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.ca/ It certainly deflates the notion that the CCP would conceal possible evidence of Bigfoot. Like the CCP staff that posted it, I am not sure what it is, but if I hazard a guess, it looks to have the same fur pattern of the two deer that were caught on the same camera shown just before that image. In the lower right corner of the shot is what appears to be more of the animal, maybe the back. The hair is very short with light skin underneath. This one piqued my interest so I went to their website and sent them this email. Here it is and their reply:You posted a photo on 1-22-2014. Time stamped 2013-09-08.I believe it is the ear of a bear and you can see the second one, a little darker, to the right. Blurry, so it's close to the camera. That's something a bear would do is get right in the camera. That's my guess. :-) Yup! A bear. Cheers, Jocelyn Jocelyn Akins Project Coordinator, Cascades Carnivore Project Anyway, from this, I would say that they knew what it was. As to deflating the notion, not so much.
bipedalist Posted February 28, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) I could see wedging a plotwatcher in the entrance to a hollow log (but because of wide angle lens it could defeat purpose if not done right), or using fresh green poplar bark stripped from logs/trees and shaped to enclose the housing of a gamecam. I know the Olympic Project attempted the latter, not sure if they ever deployed them. Edited February 28, 2015 by bipedalist
Guest DWA Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I like to read some of the early reports in Tirademan's Historical Archives (which he donated to the BFF before his passing, R.I.P.). For example: tirademan.jpg One of the things I find interesting about these accounts (saying nothing about an incident in AR raising eyebrows all the way to Baltimore) is the consistency of characteristics and measurements with average ranges into which encounter reports continue to fall right up to the present day. 22-inch track; elongated toes (frequently reported), and general dimensions that would place this subject right in the middle of that ol' normal curve. Most of these accounts remain unknown to most people, particularly practically everyone having an encounter, so copycatting doesn't scan as an explanation. This one piqued my interest so I went to their website and sent them this email. Here it is and their reply: You posted a photo on 1-22-2014. Time stamped 2013-09-08.I believe it is the ear of a bear and you can see the second one, a little darker, to the right. Blurry, so it's close to the camera. That's something a bear would do is get right in the camera. That's my guess. :-) Yup! A bear. Cheers, Jocelyn Jocelyn Akins Project Coordinator, Cascades Carnivore Project Anyway, from this, I would say that they knew what it was. As to deflating the notion, not so much. Yeah, really. I very much doubt that "bigfoot" was significant in the mind of anyone looking at this. That's a bear's ears, [rimshot] and done.
Guest Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 4) If something runs across in front of the cameras, moving fast, all you get is a blur; especially at night. I've gotten lots of blurs or nothing at all because whatever triggered the cam moved out of the field of view before the camera triggered. Yah, patty looks like she's just strolling along, but she's actually covering ground pretty quickly, I'd guess about "speed walk" or "jog" speed for most humans. I would tend to think that a Sas just out minding it's business, just strollin' would be across the field of view of most of these cams in very few strides, in 2 seconds or less. I would contend that there have been a reasonably large number of "What dah flip?" trashcan pics of strange blurs. I would say that trailcam "evidence" thus far, is not evidence of non-existence, because we have not in fact had a chance to examine the full dataset, and likely never will, people just dump trashy looking blurred pictures, or assign the blob to recognised animals. We get to see cherrypicked crystal clear pics of known animals and think that's what trailcams do every time the shutter clicks. FALSE!
HOLDMYBEER Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Is that all? Any other criteria that would meet your satisfaction? My point is different items of evidence should cross-corroborate one another in any case. That gives strength to the case. The greater the cross-corroboration of evidence the stronger the case (and the more likely the case actually occurred). The last such case I have seen so much cross-corroboration is Patterson-Gimlin in 1967. As an investigator I would expect other cases with very substantial cross-corroboration to surface if the creatures were still around. The amount of cross-corroboration of evidence in reported encounters since those days has been substantially less. With all the many claimed encounters you would think at least a few would rise to the level of corroboration seen in 1967, particularly since there are now so many people looking and so many cameras out there. This contraposition of reporting quality with sheer numbers of reports causes me to believe there are a number of things out of whack. Yup! A bear. Cheers, Jocelyn Jocelyn Akins Project Coordinator, Cascades Carnivore Project Anyway, from this, I would say that they knew what it was. As to deflating the notion, not so much. This is the lady whose camera trap photos essentially verify my wolverine sighting from July '13, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, Washington state.
Recommended Posts