Sasquatch Adaptability and Survival

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The Falcon Project concept was pretty much up for debate, what excited me most was that the ground crew was going to be in the field for such long duration, and the amount of equipment they were supposed to be carrying. I think that if we are to determine a means of locating these creatures with predictability, and with that having some means of observation, we need to think out of the box to come up with a solution. So I laud the effort of William Barnes to do such a thing, it is very easy to criticize something from an objective standpoint, but kudos to him for trying to make something fly. Kudos to SWWASAS to actually persevering to discover the means of detecting a pressure wave through the software. I might have to expose myself a bit more to being zapped in order to gain the needed recording, most of the time I leave the recorder on an old stump in my backyard adjacent to the marsh, it does not get any easier than that, location, location, location. Of course when I bought the property I had no idea what I would be doing 11 years or so later when I made the discovery. Last year I bolted into the marsh trying to outsquatch the squatch, we all know how that turned out. Well maybe I will just linger around after dark and hope I tick one off. In a few years, Lord willing, I plan to move to Florida and have staked out an area I like. Sugarmill Woods, it is in Citrus County and bordered by slash pine woods, a power easement, and much of Florida's best nature coast on the gulf side. Very close to Brooksville, where John Green documented a cluster of sightings back in the early 70s. One thing interesting about the development is that every house has a natural buffer zone behind it which consists of thick Florida scrub. I have no doubt that a few skunk apes roam those woods nearby and that with some research I could determine where. The power line easement would be an easy 4 wheeler track and it might be the ticket for some class A action, and maybe a year round research area. For now though I am dealing with artic cold, though no snow on the ground. I should probably give recording a try again soon, I doubt it but maybe winter is not out of the question for my area. I just have so little cover that I think they prefer denser wooded areas in the winter months. I say that knowing that 4 snow print finds, two very good ones, and one in clay right after a melt, all within the radius I think they use, which is in my opinion around 300 miles, some say 500 miles, these have all been found in the dead of winter. Plus a class A winter sighting of two adults in a forest preserve directly adjacent to the river I live on to the north...it all lines up...

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lake County Bigfooot

[SWWASAS]

The problems I see with some sort of aerial vehicle is the same that plagues us boots on the ground.     I have many hours doing aerial searches with my airplane.     In all that time I only had one suspected BF sighting.   And guess what it did?.   Walked around and hid behind some trees.     So anything powered will likely make enough noise to alert a BF and cause it to hide just like they do with a ground encounter.    Perhaps a tethered balloon would not be noticed or considered a threat by BF.   Certainly that would be a lower budget approach.    Get it above the trees with a remote controlled camera and spend hours looking around.    If the balloon is internally illuminated at night it might even be a curiosity and attract the BF.   Draw a big happy face on it?   Not completely joking as they are very curious.  

[FarArcher]

I looked at the basic premise of the Falcon operation, and in my opinion - it was flawed for a number of reasons.

 

I was a hot-air balloon pilot, and had an AX-8 balloon - a six-man balloon.  When flying, every cow for miles around was moo-ing, and every dog within miles was barking furiously.  One might think the overhead approach would be the way to go, but it sure upset the local animal population.  I made the mistake of flying over a long, wide steel building one day, and had no idea it was a dairy farm - and as cows came flying out and running around, the two men that came out shaking their fists at me - suggested I'd screwed up their milking process.  

 

I was always very limited in usage, as the winds had to be gentle - very gentle.  

 

I don't know where they planned on using their dual envelope 35-footer, but I can assure you it would have been of very limited use.  In mountains - they are really tricky and given to sudden bursts of winds from multiple directions, including some very strong downdrafts.

 

Then I saw that they planned on using a pretty good sized ground force.  Another bad idea.  They weren't going to get near these things.

 

I can actually see if one is in flatlands, with a combination of pastures, openings, and meadows among trees, one may be able to get some indications with a simple helium balloon raising a camera for a look around - but you'll likely only get one good look - as that thing is going to stand out like scat in a dry bathtub - it's sure not going to sneak up on anything.  And all they have to do is get on the other side of a tree, and they're "gone."

 

Everyone likes tech.

 

Tech is not a substitute for skills and patience.

 

 

[guyzonthropus]

Interesting observation of the cows!

[BigTreeWalker]

On 1/3/2017 at 10:50 AM, SWWASAS said:

The pulse was a single pressure wave.    Looks like a gunshot on the graphics software.     I have recorded distant gunshots and they look very similar to this although they have much higher amplitudes and are audible to our hearing.    This is one of the pulses from the infrasound zapping.    I could not find a printout of the single pressure wave but this looks identical.            Notice it really stands out of the noise in the rest of the trace.    Those tics at the bottom of the trace are at .01 seconds.   So peak to peak of the original passing pressure wave to the following overpressure bounce is .016 seconds.    The zapping was a series of these pressure waves.    Measuring the time between each passing pressure wave initial peak (this is one) the infrasound started at 3.41 HZ increased to 17.24 HZ then decreased to 7.69 HZ.   It is not sinusoidal but a series of arriving pressure waves like a machine gun firing at a slightly different rate.          Amplitude is sort of meaningless in that amplitude is relative to the gain setting of the recorder.    Each pressure wave is very similar in wave form and the only variance is the length of time between the arrival of  each one.    However with other digital software I did not even see this until I expanded the X and Y axis.     MInd you digital recorders are not designed to record outside of the human hearing range.        This was done with Sonic Visualizer Software which is what the Olympic Project people use.   I have no idea how BF generates these pressure waves but it is likely some kind of stuttering release of air in its lungs.     And apparently they can release one at a time.  

 

  The recording was in stereo and one trace has much higher amplitude than the other.    Based on that the source seemed to be on my left.     Post event analysis puts that behind about a 4 foot diameter log that was just behind me to the left.      A depression behind the log showed that the vegetation there had been disturbed  and compressed as if something had been behind the log.   If true I must have walked right past the BF and did not see it.    

Randy, I can't remember whether you use the mic on the recorder or if you use an external mic. Anyway my question is do you know the low Hz range of the mics you use? And when anything falls below that range how it affects the audio recorded? What I have read is that attenuation occurs when the audio drops below that range. I was also wondering if you have or have seen audio traces of other infrasound instances to see how they compare to what you have?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Agreed that we probably will not out Squatch the Squatch, they always seem two moves ahead of us, and of course they must also be aware of what is in the skies around them, I am sure they realize humans are the source of those objects. So putting stealth aside, simply because they can out stealth anything we have come up with so far, how can we capitalize on their curiosity or draw them to us. I kind of started here on the BFF when I though I might try to habituate the ones around me, it all started out trying to make contact with them, but I realized fairly quickly that was not their intention being here. They were simply in my area due to food resources, and curiosity or not they decided it was not going to be smart to engage me. In fact, now I think they seek to avoid me in general, and add to that the fact that I have tried to flush them out...generally for my own selfish need to see one...well I am sure they are now fully conditioned to not let me. It is well beyond the point of game camera's, that is where I started and found out they were smarter than to stumble into the zone of the camera. They probably saw the camera a mile off as other animals tripped the infer red. Well I am stumped on what to do to further the situation with the ones I am dealing with, I guess I will still record and look for a mistake on their parts. The juvenile was a loose cannon for about a week or two, but his parents must have set him straight on whoooping, soon after tree knocks were all that could be detected. I think they left him here and he just did what he felt like till he got corrected after the sheriff shone a spot light at him, and he vocalized in response, the parent seemed to be sort of ticked off he was doing that by the tone of the response. It is pretty amazing that they are that bold ever..but it was 3:50am and probably only the sheriff and I were awake, of course I was too paralyzed to jump out of bed and look out my window, if I had I would be a knower instead of something in between.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Lake County Bigfooot

[MIB]

Quote

So putting stealth aside, simply because they can out stealth anything we have come up with so far, how can we capitalize on their curiosity or draw them to us.

 

I don't know of an answer that works equally well everywhere.

 

Would I be correct in deducing from your post that you think they identify you, not just as a human, but as a *specific* human, one that returns to the area frequently?   I'm fairly sure they know I know they know I know ... etc.   It doesn't seem to bother them.   Even when we're in the same area, even when they've done something seemingly to make sure I know they're there, the stay out of sight.  It's "no surprises."   What I'm trying is camping in remote places where I'm safer for them to approach.   Coming or going, with less other human "traffic", there's some chance of an accidental meeting as well which seems greater than the chance in a similar but more traveled location.   When I can manage it, I try to do those hike in and camp trips with 1-2 other people.   I think the interaction between humans both creates a small disturbance that may draw their attention from distances a lone person might not be noticed at plus the chance to observe the interaction seems to pique their curiosity ... or at least has on occasion seemed to for me.

 

I don't think the question has a well-mapped answer so all we really can do is try some stuff.   I think the very best "bait" we have available to us is just being human.

 

MIB

[BigTreeWalker]

2 hours ago, Lake County Bigfooot said:

It is well beyond the point of game camera's, that is where I started and found out they were smarter than to stumble into the zone of the camera. They probably saw the camera a mile off as other animals tripped the infer red. Well I am stumped on what to do to further the situation with the ones I am dealing with, I guess I will still record and look for a mistake on their parts. 

I think a big part of their survival is noticing things in their environment. I have evidence (not great but we have to work with what we have) that they do spot cameras at a distance that is out of the usual game camera's range. They got within forty yards of my Plotwatcher, looked right at it, squated down and left the area. With a normal IR triggered game cam I would never have known this. Once they spotted it, it seems they avoid the area. Only had one chance. All I can do now is keep moving the cam and hope the same thing happens again. 

[SWWASAS]

14 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

Randy, I can't remember whether you use the mic on the recorder or if you use an external mic. Anyway my question is do you know the low Hz range of the mics you use? And when anything falls below that range how it affects the audio recorded? What I have read is that attenuation occurs when the audio drops below that range. I was also wondering if you have or have seen audio traces of other infrasound instances to see how they compare to what you have?

That is a good question.  I use the built in mikes to eliminate complexity factors and battery requirements for the microphones.      I cannot determine the low frequency specs of the microphones from the supplied data specs for the recorder but for electret condensor mikes are typically in the 20 to 30 HZ  range for the low frequency.    You are right about attenuation.    The recorder has a AGC and wind attenuation features which attenuates low frequency input.        But at the same time it is supplied with a foam wind screen so wind noise is not eliminated by the electronics.      Much of this was discussed in my thread about the infrasound event.       While the recorder is incapable of recording and reproducing a sinusoidal wave in the infrasound region,    but like most recorders can and will record pressure waves.      A wind gust or a gunshot is a pressure wave.  The recorder will record both.     We do not hear a wind gust pass directly unless the wind is really strong as they are normally below our hearing range but the wind through the trees etc betray the gust.     However microphones are very susceptible to wind noise.    As you can see from the above graphics trace the pressure wave is very attenuated and is only 4 or 5 times the background noise.         It was not obvious the first time I looked for it with the first software I used.    My voice on the same trace would be probably 10 or 20 times that amplitude on the trace.     Wind noise is often the amplitude of my voice or more.    Pretty much any wind or stream noise would completely mask infrasound on a normal digital recorder or even my infrasound recorder.    You should see what a distant thunderstorm produces on an infrasound trace on that detector.    .     

 

The problem with quantitative measurements of infrasound is that you have to have something that produces it to conduct tests.    Waiting for natural infrasound is problematic because by definition we cannot hear it and have no idea if something is producing it.     Rocks banging together in streams,  earthquakes, distant thunderstorms,   all produce infrasound but are all impossible to predict.    I certainly do not know how to provoke a BF to produce it.      I do have an infrasound detector but that does not solve the problem of producing it.     I suppose I could set up the recorder and the infrasound detector when thunderstorms are predicted then compare the results.     But you know how rare thunderstorms are in this area so that might be a long wait.     I have thought about fabricating an infrasound generator in that I think it would attract BF.    If they use it like my theory, then if I send out pulses at obviously regular artificial intervals,  it should draw them in to take a look.   But the smallest device I can find is the size of a 55 gallon drum.   Others that use resonance and large diameter tubes are much larger than that.    

 

I looked into this stuff and determined that I am not as interested in BF related audio as I am footprints and possibly getting video.       As anyone knows that does lots of recording,  listening or looking graphics traces  for hours  of recording is tedious.     Then when you do get something, you have something that does not match known animals.    Until someone videographs a BF howling or producing infrasound, we really cannot prove it is them doing it.  

[BigTreeWalker]

I guess what I was suggesting is that there are other animals in the world that use it. Just wondering if there are any graphics of those; elephants, tigers, etc. 

 

I feel the same way about recording. It takes a long time to review however you do it. Even if you get something of interest it's hard to say for sure what you got. I have a hard enough time reviewing a month's worth of Plotwatcher pictures. It takes around 10,000 a day. 

[hiflier]

SWWASAS, You have the recording. It's digital. You wouldn't need a large amplifier if you use your existing recording as the source. Play it back in to a parabolic dish with the volume all the way up. Aim speaker into the dish and adjust the recorder/speaker relationship. Yhat can be done with a normal audio recording by checking how far away you can be and still hear it. OR hook the recorder up to a megaphone, Powered or not and even though you won't hear what comes out you will know WHEN it comes out by monitoring the recorder's counter.

 

You don't need a lot of power to get out 40-50 yards. If they know your in the area then they could stay close enough unseen to hear the effect. You won't create a pressure wave but then I don't think you really have to. Think of juveniles. Doubt if they produce much infrasound but it probably doesn't take much if parents are close by. A juvenile's infrasound is probably barely "infra" anyway.

Edited January 5, 2017 by hiflier

[TritonTr196]

Red led infrared trail cams is outdated now days. Try the newer black led trail cams. Animals will never see any infrared flash or light. They might smell the camera, for those animals with a great sense of smell, I do not include bigfoot in this group, but they will never see any type of infrared red led flash from the camera.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I might have to try that black light game camera somewhere new, I think the element of surprise is needed to capture a game cam pic of a Sasquatch. They either need to be distracted enough, or tempted enough by a food source, or not suspect a game cam in an area. I am pretty sure the juvenile has entered the area near my recorder several times. He was probably less than 30 yards from me when I was urinating and a tree went down, the one and only time a tree went down and I heard it, but I also heard something bolting through the marsh cattails, they were 5 feet high, so must have been on all fours or quite short. Tree was broken off at about 6 foot level. Any way I have thought about staking the area out from some unusual vantage point as well, there is a cell tower and building overlooking the marsh area on the perimeter, maybe the roof of that building or from a higher vantage point in a tree. It has to be a one time deal during the activity of summer. I should build a stand come spring and be ready. I do think glassing from above is a possible means of seeing one, unless they already have the high ground. Around me there is less hilly terrain so they do not quite think the same, although I think they still use every advantage the terrain can offer.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Lake County Bigfooot
spelling, typo

[SWWASAS]

On 1/5/2017 at 11:08 AM, hiflier said:

SWWASAS, You have the recording. It's digital. You wouldn't need a large amplifier if you use your existing recording as the source. Play it back in to a parabolic dish with the volume all the way up. Aim speaker into the dish and adjust the recorder/speaker relationship. Yhat can be done with a normal audio recording by checking how far away you can be and still hear it. OR hook the recorder up to a megaphone, Powered or not and even though you won't hear what comes out you will know WHEN it comes out by monitoring the recorder's counter.

 

You don't need a lot of power to get out 40-50 yards. If they know your in the area then they could stay close enough unseen to hear the effect. You won't create a pressure wave but then I don't think you really have to. Think of juveniles. Doubt if they produce much infra sound but it probably doesn't take much if parents are close by. A juvenile's infrasound is probably barely "infra" anyway.

I wish it was that easy.     While I could electronically generate a signal in the infra sound range finding a speaker or amplifier that will reproduce that is difficult.    I have looked.    I have a Klipsch speaker sitting right next to me.    This model has not been made in decades.   It is 37.5 inches high,   25.5 inches wide, and 15.5 inched deep and has a 15 inch woofer.   A very big speaker.      But it and others like it cannot even begin to reproduce infra sound.     It could be that some of the movie theater sub woofers could produce infra sound but they are bigger yet.     None of these are by any definition portable.     The 55 gallon drum thing was available from the company that produced the infra sound detector I bought.    Not sure it is still available.    At infra sound frequencies,   some mechanical device might be developed.     I have seen 30 HZ motors on Amazon.     Using an electronic speed control  on the motor driving an eccentric crank shaft driving a piston in a very large pipe PVC of the appropriate length that is a harmonic of the wavelength of the frequency you wish to produce, and I think you could have a relatively cheap infra sound producer capable of producing different frequencies in the infra sound range.    It would have a large displacement and should produce a very powerful pressure wave.     Would work like one of the big church pipe organs.   Might be something I do when I am too old to do hiking any more.      You can see I have already put some thought in this topic already.   

Edited January 6, 2017 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I wish it was that easy

Me too, Sorry I was of no help SWWASAS. Infrasonics is tough.

 

3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

You can see I have already put some thought in this topic already

Yes I can and thank you for explaining the hurdles in greater detail. Could save someone a lot of time and expense. You and others like you are definitely on the leading edge in the field and that says you and others have done your homework. And so we have learned and continue to learn valuable lessons. Your chasing down the pressure wave into a visible representation is a good case in point. Rather brilliant I must say.