Bigfoot Arial Recon

[Guest Waggles]

15 hours ago, hiflier said:

The Finding Bigfoot crew could afford it. I mean they don't always have to be on a TV camera to look for Bigfoot do they?  Let.'em get back to their roots before fame started taking up all of their time.

All their equipment is donated on loan. And they don't have a show anymore do they? And the odds of pulling this off are really bad. For $300,000++, I can tell you it ain't gonna happen.

There is an assumption here that a BF will magically appear once you have this plane. Wrong it's the plane and crew which equals $$$$$$ so like half a mil, and how many months? Or years?

Pie in the sky.

My advice: Run away from any group that tells you they be gonna finds em a BigFootsti when they gets the $$. Run!!!!

[hiflier]

I would do it for half that.........RUN ANYWAY!!  

[FarArcher]

14 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

That's a lot of interesting technology. It amazes me what people can come up with. But if you want to use that in the forests of Washington State good luck. Thermal imaging still can't see through heavy forest canopies. I do like the idea of using good telescopic equipment and stacking out an area from higher elevations. But I think you would have a long wait on your hands. Having glassed for elk, deer and bear, it does get tedious over long periods of time. 

 

I agree - that technology is much better in broken terrain, deserts, and flat terrain that's not covered with a tree canopy.  A thermal can detect heat - but it can't see through things.  

[VAfooter]

There are places other than WA it could be used. Especially in areas where the leaves drop for winter.

[Trogluddite]

Good thread.  Again, if I ever win the NY Powerball, we can talk.  However, while everyone keeps running back to thermal, I would again point out that I'd rather have a low-light level system (what used to be called a Starlight Scope) on the camera.

 

Even the best thermal gives you nothing more than a color-coded shape or collection of shapes.  While (since I recall the thread on thermal images from two years ago) you can get cute, highly defined pictures of kittens or puppies if you are very close to the subject, I question whether any thermal image would ever be good enough to "prove" the existence of bigfoot.  If you're close enough to get a detailed thermal image of its face, you can probably reach out and get a hair and phlegm sample at the same moment.

 

Starlight scopes allow you to see the object, not a color coding of what's hot or what's not.  That's why that would be my preference.

[MIB]

There are some locations a thermal imager could be handy for me, particularly clear cuts and old fire scars.    Not really where I'm looking, but ... knowing something is around is seldom a bad thing.   It's also not useful as evidence or proof, not going to change any minds.   It would be useful for show-n-tell among others who already accept existence.   It might be useful for furthering your understanding of behavior even if it is not useful for providing proof. 

 

I need to know more about high magnification cameras without having to go through the painful slow expensive learning process.   I've found a burn scar across a canyon about 1.25 miles from a high point overlooking it by 500 feet or more.   Get close, see nothing, it's all hidden.  From a distance, from above, might see something.    How much magnification does it take to get an acceptably detailed image from 2 miles or so?

 

MIB

[norseman]

For me it's a scouting tool!

 

A hit on the camera, thermal or otherwise will not be conclusive as proof of the creature.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 1/19/2017 at 8:30 AM, BigTreeWalker said:

That's a lot of interesting technology. It amazes me what people can come up with. But if you want to use that in the forests of Washington State good luck. Thermal imaging still can't see through heavy forest canopies. I do like the idea of using good telescopic equipment and stacking out an area from higher elevations. But I think you would have a long wait on your hands. Having glassed for elk, deer and bear, it does get tedious over long periods of time. 

I think that scanning along river, lake, and bay margins during early morning and high altitude meadows and ridge lines and talus fields might be productive.

Get the optimum conditions and hope for the occasional intercept.

Patterson and Gimlin found patty in the open on a stream margin, otherwise we would have nothing to talk about.

The Freeman film was in a trail opening although I admit the canopy comes into play in both instances.

 

A related on topic follow up--

Another good quiet platform with a 100 mile range and automated video and fleer tracking.

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest Waggles]

You would have to find at least 10 people with nothing to do for several months to do something like this, plus backup people for the high attrition rate. So 100 people over 12 months +. 

Statisticly improbable. Never, I repeat never going to happen.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

6 hours ago, Waggles said:

You would have to find at least 10 people with nothing to do for several months to do something like this, plus backup people for the high attrition rate. So 100 people over 12 months +. 

Statisticly improbable. Never, I repeat never going to happen.

Join thread killers anonymous, for those that... just.... can't... resist....

An intervention to extract Bigfoot from my brain.

That, and helicopters.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest Waggles]

Well, propose something practical and then we could discuss it in practical terms. Personally, I know what I would do to "find" me a Bigfoot, but I'm anti- exposure so it won't be discussed. 

 

It's also not really a thread killer. I'm just pointing out the logistics for this type of operation are not practical. Sort of doing a favor, no?

[norseman]

On 1/20/2017 at 5:40 PM, Trogluddite said:

Good thread.  Again, if I ever win the NY Powerball, we can talk.  However, while everyone keeps running back to thermal, I would again point out that I'd rather have a low-light level system (what used to be called a Starlight Scope) on the camera.

 

Even the best thermal gives you nothing more than a color-coded shape or collection of shapes.  While (since I recall the thread on thermal images from two years ago) you can get cute, highly defined pictures of kittens or puppies if you are very close to the subject, I question whether any thermal image would ever be good enough to "prove" the existence of bigfoot.  If you're close enough to get a detailed thermal image of its face, you can probably reach out and get a hair and phlegm sample at the same moment.

 

Starlight scopes allow you to see the object, not a color coding of what's hot or what's not.  That's why that would be my preference.

 

Nightvision is way cheaper than FLIR. My problem with nightvision is that if mounted on a drone? It's completely possible to over fly a target and completely miss it. Same as a daylight camera. FLIR can be used DAY or night and your never going to miss a target unless it is actively hiding its heat signature from you. Plus FLIR cuts through fog and clouds, NV does not.

 

The Pentagon now has FLIR that has the capability of actually cutting through triple canopy jungle, houses, etc. Nothing can hide. 

 

If your searching for something FLIR is the way to go. Seeing detail at night? I've looked through PVS-7 NV googles, night was definitely like day. Dang good. But camouflage still works against them.

[Trogluddite]

19 hours ago, Waggles said:

 

It's also not really a thread killer. I'm just pointing out the logistics for this type of operation are not practical. Sort of doing a favor, no?

No. 

[Guest Waggles]

I don't see any rational arguments to show my analysis is wrong. 

 

While the above posted technology is would be a great advantage, finding dozens of high skilled people who would pay for a 6 month rotation ( or even less) would not be doable because of the subject matter and high skill set needed.

We saw this played out with the super defunct FALCON project. People here thinking they were going to get their money back etc. Lol. 

 

You have to pay to play. No one is going to throw $$$quarter mil min. to get a blob squatch on FLIR or whichever .

 

Correct me when I'm wrong by all means.

 

[Trogluddite]

I will explain, but I won't engage in a lengthy discussion.  In the military, there is a phrase for the statements you're making, but repeating it here would likely get me suspended if not banned.  

 

You're making statements that are so obvious that they don't add value to the discussion.  Everyone knows this information.  Arguing it doesn't add to the conversation.  If I'm at a staff meeting discussing the ways to defend Seoul from a Nork land invasion, along with executing other assigned missions, pointing out that we can't defend against a donkey-based nuclear missile is sort of, "No kidding, Sherlock."

 

So adding statements that point out the obvious, regardless of the circumstances, is not a display of wit or knowledge, it's a display of lack of focus.