ShadowBorn Posted June 11, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) You have to remember your not dealing with the average bear. These are big hairy people who have been watching us ever since we met. They know what we can do even if they dont always understand how we do it. That's what gets me too, how do they know what they should not understand?. Deer walk up to cameras and smell them because they are curuous but a b\f no they avoid them. A animal does not know some thing until it has been taught so if these creatures are wild why would they care ? You have people taking pictures of animals that are rarely seen in different countries . Yet rarely do these animals even know the camera photographed them. What is different between them and these creatures ?. There should not be a difference between the two species and yet there is. They Hare wild and should have no knowledge of technology so why do they avoid? I had a camera trap rsetup in this area were it took pictures of nothing consecutively. Time stamp starting at 2:00am- 4:00am. No wind or weather to explain ,and it all seemed like something played with the camera. The camera trap was a 35mm so it took film. Very weird and odd. Edited June 11, 2012 by julio126 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 If that's the case, would they not now realize that cameras are harmless and that humans are the main threat? Most wild animals would soon come to the same conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted June 11, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2012 I had placed a ground stand this last year for deer hunting . I left this ground stand out there in the woods and baited this area, I then stayed out of the area. Sure enough deer started coming in . Why? They felt comfortable and since this new object was not a threat yet they could eat the bait. I did see deer tracks around the ground stand so the ground stand was investigated. How do they know one human from another and so on. How would they know that this person holding a thermo is a threat or that person holding that camera is one. Do all these creatures think that we are a threat? If that is true then these creatures have thought or a process of being able to think like us. Animals do not have this right? So how can they consider cameras a threat?. I can understand them considering us humans a threat to them . But a camera that has never caused them harm what gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Similar to what was on Mike Greene's video. White blob squatch. What the picture could look like "thermally cleaned up". Are you saying that this amount of information could be retrieved from Mike Greene's video now? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) If his format was compatible with the thermal programs available, I would say yes. I had placed a ground stand this last year for deer hunting . I left this ground stand out there in the woods and baited this area, I then stayed out of the area. Sure enough deer started coming in . Why? They felt comfortable and since this new object was not a threat yet they could eat the bait. I did see deer tracks around the ground stand so the ground stand was investigated. How do they know one human from another and so on. How would they know that this person holding a thermo is a threat or that person holding that camera is one. Do all these creatures think that we are a threat? If that is true then these creatures have thought or a process of being able to think like us. Animals do not have this right? So how can they consider cameras a threat?. I can understand them considering us humans a threat to them . But a camera that has never caused them harm what gives? My apologies. My comment above was meant for the post below, but your earlier post beat mine by a minute. We're on the same page. You have to remember your not dealing with the average bear. These are big hairy people who have been watching us ever since we met. They know what we can do even if they dont always understand how we do it. Edited June 11, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I would like to see that thermal image cleaned up too. As for cameras being harmless, I think the sasquach would be wary just because it belongs to humans and are unsure of our intent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I am absolutely sure that someone here could put you in touch with Mike Greene. Why don't you send a PM to HRPuffnstuff, linking to these posts, and see if he can point you in the right direction? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Will attempt to, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Any news on the thermal cleanup attempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Hi all, I'm a newbie and glad to have found this site! I've long been fascinated by Bigfoot. I remember seeing the PGF on TV when I was in the fourth grade (mid 70s), and the next day at school my best buddy and I made a pact: When we graduated High School, we would take a trip to northern California, rent a couple horses and look for Bigfoot. Now, many years later, I still haven't taken that trip (although it is on my bucket list). My question is, with the advent of technology, why don't we have some decent pictures or video? In the last 10 years alone we've seen the rise of cellphones that take video and still pictures, digital cameras that shoot both, camcorders, even trail cams. Yet there still isn't anything clearer than the PG film. I don't buy the "Bigfoot is an inter-dimensional being and disappears around cameras" argument, and I certainly don't buy the "Bigfoot can smell the plastic trail cams and thus avoids them" claim. I want to believe something is out there, but why can't we find some good evidence? Again, glad to be here! Strangenstein My belief is that NO PHOTO or FILM is going to solve the mystery, and that every thing that is taken cannot rule out some guy in a fur suit. Only a body can solve the mystery. But I've seen some compelling video since the PGF....I find the Memorial day footage rather compelling, as well as the recent Minnesota snow track way (no actual sighting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 That's what gets me too, how do they know what they should not understand?. Deer walk up to cameras and smell them because they are curuous but a b\f no they avoid them. A animal does not know some thing until it has been taught so if these creatures are wild why would they care ? Ok, even a bear or wolf can learn that when a human starts doing the "squinty thing" with an object (gun) then pain and death can come from it. So it should be easy for sas (arguably smarter than a bear or wolf) to learn the same thing. So when they see a human doing the "squinty thing" with a camera, they don't need to know it's a camera instead of a gun. All they know is that the human is holding a thing up to it's face and peering through it. For all they know, cameras may just be weirdly shaped "bang sticks". You have people taking pictures of animals that are rarely seen in different countries . Yet rarely do these animals even know the camera photographed them. What is different between them and these creatures ?. There should not be a difference between the two species and yet there is. They Hare wild and should have no knowledge of technology so why do they avoid? On what basis do you presume they should not "know" technology. They may not understand the mechansims themselves, but they can draw simple cause-effect inferences (though not necessarily correct ones) .from our use of various items and devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted August 6, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 6, 2012 How did this creature know it was being recorded. It's a wild man or creature it is not suppose to know about cameras ,thermos or even starlights. Yet here we have a creature on thermo and it is not the first using tactics to avoid being seen. They are either hoaxed or the real deal and if the real deal then they are masterful at surviving . Tom Brown Jr teaches survival classes at the Tracker School. In them he teaches that that ooky feeling of 'being watched' is a sense that all of us humans have, one that can be developed far beyond the simple feeling of being watched. In fact he teaches in some classes to get a feeling for what it feels like to be on camera. Now if humans can do that, do you think BF could if its survival depended on it? Its a good bet though that the installation of the camera was observed. FB/FB's suggestion of showing up with the cameras mounted on the truck and already running is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crittergetter Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Hi all, My question is, with the advent of technology, why don't we have some decent pictures or video? In the last 10 years alone we've seen the rise of cellphones that take video and still pictures, digital cameras that shoot both, camcorders, even trail cams. I've heard this same question brought up a lot of times and for a while I thought it was a legitimate question. At first glance it makes perfect sense to ask. However, there are a few things wrong with it. First of all, 'new technology' doesn't always mean better. A lot of cellphones do indeed have cameras in them, capable of taking pictures and recording a varied amount of action. And to be fair, we have seen a handful of cellphone video/images. You know what they all have in common? They're all pretty terrible quality. Exactly why that is I'm really not sure, and I imagine the reasons vary between each particular model of cellphone and the conditions of the filming. Another reason why we don't have many images or films that are considered 'good evidence' actually has nothing to do with the quality of the film or images themselves. We rarely trust what we see in videos or images because of how easily such things can be faked. In a way the quality of the video or image doesn't mean anything because of what a talented photoshopper or film specialist can do with the right programs. Honestly, after being asked this question a few times I began to question its relevance. I mean, what is the point of speculating on what we think we should have? What does 'should' even mean in this case? We have what we have, and just because we think we ought to have more does not in any way effect the potential truth of the Bigfoot phenomena. I want to believe something is out there, but why can't we find some good evidence? We all have our own ideas of what is good and what isn't. Figure out what 'good evidence' is for you and then endeavor to find it! You never know what you might find if you just start looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JVDBogart Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 My 2 cents on the game camera dilemma. When going to retrieve their cameras, many people find they are destroyed or gone. If they are destroyed, then a bear is blamed. If it is missing, then a human must have stolen it. What if some of these missing and destroyed game cameras are really caused by Bigfoot? Perhaps a Bigfoot did trip the camera? Then either heard it or saw the light and instinctively eliminated the potential threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted August 6, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 6, 2012 Another reason why we don't have many images or films that are considered 'good evidence' actually has nothing to do with the quality of the film or images themselves. We rarely trust what we see in videos or images because of how easily such things can be faked. In a way the quality of the video or image doesn't mean anything because of what a talented photoshopper or film specialist can do with the right programs. Honestly, after being asked this question a few times I began to question its relevance. I mean, what is the point of speculating on what we think we should have? What does 'should' even mean in this case? We have what we have, and just because we think we ought to have more does not in any way effect the potential truth of the Bigfoot phenomena. We all have our own ideas of what is good and what isn't. Figure out what 'good evidence' is for you and then endeavor to find it! You never know what you might find if you just start looking. IMO we already have good photos and film/video. It just all gets debated, no matter how good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts