Thinking Caps Please......

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

This thread is for discussing a particular BF image capture method. We all have seen the discussions and debates on trail cameras. The range of that topic includes Sasquatch picking up sound emissions, plastic or Human odors either in the area or on the trail cams themselves, BF observing the placement of them, recognizing an object out of place in the woods, seeing the infra-red sensors or even possibly the current crop of black LEDs. It's to the point where even the daytime-only PlotWatchers which simply take photos at every whatever time cadence the units are set for.

 

So. What about all that? Even if one can successfully mask odor and hide or disguise a camera there is still the IR to deal with. Is there, or are there, any alternatives?

 

I think there is and I'd like to discuss a design plan for getting around the apparent trail cam conundrum. But first, before digging a 15 ft. diameter hole in the ground that's 25'ft deep and covering over with branches and leaves do any of you have any thoughts on alternative camera traps? The floor is open for discussion in which eventually I'll lob my two rocks worth into the camp on what I would propose 

 

 

[Old Dog]

I don't have any alternatives to what is being done as of now, but offer this.  I believe that all of the "excuses" for not getting a BF on a trail cam are basically just that, "excuses".  My thoughts are that the reason for no good trail cam shots is rather simple.  The cameras aren't where the BF are.  This is supposing that there are BF to take pics of.  Take the millions and millions of acres of forest and woods, then take the area that a trail cam photographs.  That is worse than looking for a needle in a haystack.  The excuses for the trail cam not taking a pic of a BF is presupposing that there is a BF in that specific spot to take a picture of.  I really doubt that a BF will ever be caught on a trail cam, not due to it's stealthy abilities, but to the sheer lack of density of habitation.  You can put hundreds of trail cams in the forest, camouflage then anyway you want, but if the subject isn't there, you will never, ever get a pic of one.  The reason that there are so many pic of wildlife on trail cams is that they are set up in a KNOWN area of travel that can be repeatedly proven to produce such wildlife.  That, unfortunately is not the case with BF.  They seem to have no set traits of travel or areas of habitation.  Yeah, I know, there are those who claim habitation, and for whatever excuse, refuse to show the rest of the world, but aside from that, there are no proven areas or we would have the proof by now.  Again, just my two cents.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Old Dog

[ohiobill]

Old Dog's right on in my book. It seems from encounter reports that BF doesn't seem to mind lights around houses, businesses, cars or campfires which all have some IR component. They also don't seem to avoid plastic smells on and around houses, barns, casinos, cars, campers, dumpster lids or Roger Patterson's rented camera either. 

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog and ohiobill,

OK.

[Old Dog]

Hiflier,  however, I am greatly interested in what your proposals are for this dilemma.

[Cotter]

I really think the camera trap deal is a waste of time as any pic, no matter how good, will be dubbed hoax.

 

However, is someone has their heart set on it, I would have to agree with Old Dog - not a lot of cameras in BF territory.  Not to mention that, once in BF territory, they know you're there.

 

I do like the Plotwatcher idea as they have a spectacular range of clarity and can be positioned quite a ways away from any 'hot spot' you may have.

I would personally set up items like that around watering holes during the dry season.  Everything has to drink!

[norseman]

I can think of two game can photos that were dismissed as a mangy Bear and a ghillie suit.

Both sets were positioned over Bear bait stations.

I do not believe a photo will ever settle this, but this where I would start.

[ohiobill]

There are no bad cameras, just bad pictures. Better to capture 100 maybe's than nothing at all and you just might get "the shot". Old Dog's point (I think, feel free to correct me OD) was that we shouldn't be listening to internet experts who claim to see bigfoot everywhere but only have excuses when it comes to photos not that we should give up on cameras. 

[Old Dog]

I think the idea of a game cam is still intriguing, if for no other reason than personal satisfaction.  I would love to have a game cam pic of something that I thought was a BF.  It would be at least personal gratification of my personal suspicions.  When all is said and done, a pic is nothing more than a snapshot of a moment in time.  At that moment, there was something in the woods that appeared to be a Bigfoot, and here's the picture.  Was it a Bigfoot, who knows, but there you have it.  There may be pics out there that have better clarity than what we have to date, but are being kept out of the public eye for what ever reason, but I think Hiflier is reasonable in his wanting a great shot of what could be a Bigfoot.  I am very interested in his proposal for this as I would also like to have a picture of one, if for no other reason than to have it. I, myself, can think of no other way to hide a game cam or a picture taking hide that hasn't been tried already, but am anxious to see what the ideas are.

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog,

Why I'd thought you'd never ask The idea came to me after watching the NAWAC update video here:

http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/251

Bob Strain talked about the trail cam failures, the number of Plot Watchers in the field etc., etc. and also about the sheer number of rocks thrown, their sizes, and the enormous slaps on the cabin in which dust would even fall from the rafters sometimes. This thread is to pursue the pic/video capture as far as the rocks and cabin slaps go though.

The idea is simple really. Remember the jokes we used to make about the Clap on/Clap off commercials? Well, that is where this is going- sound-triggered image capture. No IR LEDS needed. Voice/sound activated equipment isn't new technology by any means; it's been around forever in mini recorders and other devices. So this idea is to incorporate sound to activate cameras.

It's mainly targeted to areas with KNOWN activity like Area X. When a loud slap is detected on the cabin say, than the sound of the slap turns on either lights, camera strobes or maybe passive video which is sitting anywhere one wishes. Nothing will be "on" until a loud sound is detected and then all heck can break loose not limited to lighting up the perimeter for good images or video even if it's only for capturing motion lasting a few seconds.

The other idea which I've not really pursued very deeply is a perimeter of very light weight trip strings that control the power supply to energize image capture equipment in order to save on battery consumption. Everything is off until the string gets broken then again all heck cuts loose and everything turns on.

This isn't high tech at all. just using what is already available in a different way. Because I agree, you need BF in an area to pull this off like perhaps the perimeter around the farm in Honobia? I don't care how good BF's eyesight is- even in the daytime a thin black trip string will be impossible to see.

The other think which has been in my thoughts for a long time is that camera lenses look like eyes. So change the shape of the lens aperture into something different with some electrical tape like say into a square or diamond or some other odd shape. One will get what is called vignetting but who cares really if most of the field of view is intact.

I sent the main idea to NAWAC last week but haven't heard back yet.

Edited August 24, 2015 by hiflier

[WSA]

Couple of thoughts:

 

Point your cameras up. By some accounts, lots of sighting are missed, or captured only by accident due to a fixation on only a ground-bound BF. They aren't born 8' tall, and it is likely young ones who might have less awareness and practice at being stealthy get around by traveling tree to tree.

 

Your camera would do well to be in situ for years before you make it  fully operational. This kind of long game is going to be the only strategy to match an animal that by all accounts operates in the same manner. They only have time, and we mostly do not.  Make your camera set during times of least activity, if you know when that is, and bide your time. Be prepared to tend your camera for a long, long time, with no results.  

 

Avoid thinking if you stuff your artificial and intrusive  camera inside another artificial and intrusive object you'll increase your odds of fooling anything. In fact, it probably flags your intentions better than just a camera would.

 

Your efforts are not going to get you world-wide and viral fame on any web site (not even this one) and the popular media will yawn when you go public with it. If you are, against all odds, successful, it is only for the personal satisfaction of accomplishing a supremely difficult task. You will not get rich, and most probably it will wind up costing you a huge amount of money and time.   

[Old Dog]

There are no bad cameras, just bad pictures. Better to capture 100 maybe's than nothing at all and you just might get "the shot". Old Dog's point (I think, feel free to correct me OD) was that we shouldn't be listening to internet experts who claim to see bigfoot everywhere but only have excuses when it comes to photos not that we should give up on cameras. 

 

To clarify my point, I was responding to all of the folks who always say that there should be a picture of a Bigfoot given the fact that we have so many pics of other animals in the woods taken by game cams.  All the escuses people give for not having that picture capture are just that, excuses.  I, personally, don't believe that human scent, lights, IFR, plastics smell, electronic noise, or just inherent knowledge of what a camera is and what it does has anything to do with not having a picture.  It is simply the math of looking for something so small, and in comparison 8 or 9 ft. tall is small, in a forest that is comprised of multi millions of acres.  I live in Washington right between the Olympics and the Cascades, and trust me, in most places, if you go ten feet off the path, you're invisible.  So getting something to pass in front a a camera placed in millions and millions of acres of dense forest is a once in a lifetime occurrence at best.  We should not give up on camera traps, but one has to realize the odds of such a photo capture, and anything that enhances those odds would be welcomed by the BF community I'm sure.  That's why Hifliers idea has me interested.  I am willing to put out a Zagnut bar if it will coax him out and have him share his thoughts on this.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Old Dog

[OkieFoot]

I think if I was going to set up trail cams to overlook a particular spot, I would set up at least three or four cams, and hopefully at least two, or maybe more, would be triggered. Obviously they would be separated and at a bit different distances from the spot so you get more than one angle.

With only one trail cam, it seems like numerous times you only get a partial figure that isn't very distinguishable, or it may not be in a good position to see any details, etc.

[Cotter]

Good idea WSA! (About the pointing up!)

 

Also, there was a guy that was developing a camera that was triggered when something stepped on a pressure sensitive mat.

I thought it was a member here.  Anyone remember that?

[Redbone]

Maybe we just need better a camera and a very steady tripod. I want this one...We could film them from a state away.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Redbone