Field Tech Talk

[CMBigfoot]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 0:58 PM, TritonTr196 said:

 

 

But, If you're just sitting one behind a black plastic piece trying to capture something in the distance it's not going to work.

 

I have a FLIR H-Series Command. And I can hold a black plastic bag in front of my FLIR and see through it as I walk around. I can put the black plastic bag over me and the FLIR and I can see through it as I walk around. When I put a black plastic bag around my live trap and trap an animal in it I can see through it at a distance.

 

If there's anyone in the Oregon or Washington area that has an active BF hotspot and would like to use my FLIR feel free to send me a P.M.

[Incorrigible1]

5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Some members are sitting on and not posting photographs just for that reason.   

 

I appreciate and respect you, SWWASAS, but I'm from Missouri (actually, a state that borders Missouri.) Show me. Hate to be brutal, but I don't believe this. Put up or shut up. Those with such photos, PM me, if you wish. My solemn vow not to divulge anything. But I ain't buying this.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Incorrigible1

[hiflier]

You got it Inc1- a black Suburban is on the way  and don't worry, they already know where you live.

Edited December 2, 2017 by hiflier

[Incorrigible1]

14 minutes ago, hiflier said:

You got it Inc1- a black Suburban is on the way  and don't worry, they already know where you live.

 

 

[hiflier]

FABULOUS! Steely was one of my favorites. Right behind Rita Coolidge singing the late Leon Russell's Superstar on Joe Cocker's Mad Dogs and Englishmen double album- I melted. And I always wondered why she was with that loser Chris Christopherson instead of me. Speaking of which, did you ever see the movie Pat Garret and Billy the Kid? Bob Dylan played the never-talking knife man in it. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by hiflier

[Incorrigible1]

Yup. Once shook hands with Christopherson. It was the third Farm Aid, held in Lincoln, NE. It was the Friday nite, before, I was walking down P St, home of many bars. I recognized him, welcomed him, shook hands. I'm 5; 10", he was six inches shorter. FWIW September, 1987. I was 33.

[hiflier]

Nice move! abd BTW, my friend, compared to me you're still a spring chicken. Really dig your taste in music too. Like you taste in books too. Just chewed through Zorba the Greek recently myself. Dense read, but the writing really put me in the scene with the characters. Trivia: Ever watch the 1927 utopian movie 'Metropolis?

 

(prolly should get back on topic) Sorry everyone.

[norseman]

11 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Once you use night illumination on a BF from a drone I do not think it will come back.     So you basically have one shot to learn what you are going to learn from the experiment.      If camp surveillance and photographs are a goal,  then perhaps it might be worth the risk of driving them away.   That sort of depends on what you want to learn.    Certainly those that shine a powerful flashlight at a BF at night, usually get an angry response and the BF leave and don't come back.     I found from experimenting with normal DSLR cameras and telephoto lenses,  using my airplane, that above 300 feet,    the resulting photographs did not show much.     I did not have a cooperating BF but did use some cattle to see how things worked with larger animals.     You have to be low to get good photography.    A mature forest has trees over 100 feet tall in the PNW.    So you have a pretty narrow zone of altitude with which to fly, avoid trees, and still get useful photography be it drone or airplane.  

 

Too much of what we do is not well thought out.   We have to take what little we know about BF behavior,   examine a tool like a drone,    and determine the best use for it.    If repeated contacts in a camp situation are a goal,  then perhaps things like drones with lights might not be the best route to take.     One experimental use for a drone might be experiments with IR, or UV light to see which BF seems to see or not see.      Just that knowledge would be very useful to all in the future.     

 

I did note in the Phantom 4 active follow test video one possible violation of FAA drone rules.     You cannot fly over pedestrians.     The maker of the video abruptly cut the video when pedestrians walked across the street in front of the car.   After the first airliner hits a drone,   or some drone crashes into a crowd of people,  there is going to be a crack down with serious jail time for those that violate the rules.     There have been several very close calls with airliners already.        

 

My goal is to kill one. So I would not be worried about what it would or would not do in the future.

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

5 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

I appreciate and respect you, SWWASAS, but I'm from Missouri (actually, a state that borders Missouri.) Show me. Hate to be brutal, but I don't believe this. Put up or shut up. Those with such photos, PM me, if you wish. My solemn vow not to divulge anything. But I ain't buying this.

 

With all due respect, I would bet the farm there are those out there that are content to have their picture or video. They say, "I know what I saw and I know what my picture shows, but I don't want to be subjected to the cruel underbelly of public scrutiny. The freaks come out and debate me not the picture." 

 

Why should they? I am exactly like them. There is no person on this forum, nor any human alive, that I need approval from. I know what I've seen and I don't need anyone else to accept it.

 

Honestly, I don't what is difficult to understand about that. People don't want to be a sasquatch pinata.

 

I ain't buying what you ain't buying.

 

 

[norseman]

5 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

I appreciate and respect you, SWWASAS, but I'm from Missouri (actually, a state that borders Missouri.) Show me. Hate to be brutal, but I don't believe this. Put up or shut up. Those with such photos, PM me, if you wish. My solemn vow not to divulge anything. But I ain't buying this.

 

I don’t find it hard to believe. No photo ever, will be able to remove the doubt of a man in a suit. Maybe a video of a Bigfoot doing curls with a Jeep frame in front of a 53 ft semi trailer would provide the scale and believability needed? Not holding my breath.

 

Most skeptics will scoff until the creature is drug in feet first. And rightfully so. If the creature exists, this should be achievable versus grainy photos and cool stories.

[SWWASAS]

18 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

I appreciate and respect you, SWWASAS, but I'm from Missouri (actually, a state that borders Missouri.) Show me. Hate to be brutal, but I don't believe this. Put up or shut up. Those with such photos, PM me, if you wish. My solemn vow not to divulge anything. But I ain't buying this.

As I have said before,  my intent is to write a book someday.     I am sitting on some things because once I publish it here,   anyone can claim it was theirs and I stole it from them.    There is no honor in thieves.     I don't know about you but I try to  avoid paying lawyers as much as possible.    I am not the only one doing this on the forum for similar reasons.      My purpose here is not to convince skeptics but to exchange information with those have some to exchange.    Put up or shut up does not apply.    If it did,   none of you skeptics could be members because you cannot prove non-existence.    

 

Sadly what Norseman says is correct.    It will take a body or at least a skeleton to prove anything.    Pictures will never do that at this point.  

Edited December 2, 2017 by SWWASAS

[norseman]

What is sad for me? Is that I can talk til I’m blue in the face. But most researchers continue to gear up for that perfect photo or video. 

 

Most really do not want to solve this mystery, other than for themselves I guess.

Edited December 2, 2017 by norseman

[SWWASAS]

I meant sad that a picture means nothing any more or for the BF involved,   not for you.     At this point,   all a good photo would do, is clear up if Patty is typical, and provide some physical characteristics to compare with the BF that ends up on the lab table.    For all we know there are more than one species out there.   Like you say a photo does little in the proof category.   Personally at this point,  I would leave the cameras behind,  if I thought like some claim, that doing that would make it more likely to have an encounter.      I know that is not true in some cases.   And if it comes to fussing with camera gear or watching intently during a 15 second encounter,  I would chose the watching intently option. But  I hear encounter stories where the BF is unaware it is being watched and is in view for many minutes.      I can always hope to catch the golden ring and run into a situation like that where I can get a lot of photos or video.   

Edited December 2, 2017 by SWWASAS

[TritonTr196]

16 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

They say, "I know what I saw and I know what my picture shows, but I don't want to be subjected to the cruel underbelly of public scrutiny. The freaks come out and debate me not the picture."

 

But isn't this the very same thing that's happening to them now, For not showing anything? Can't win either way sometimes no matter what side of the fence you are on.

 

 

[MIB]

5 hours ago, TritonTr196 said:

But isn't this the very same thing that's happening to them now, For not showing anything? Can't win either way sometimes no matter what side of the fence you are on.

 

Not, not quite the same thing.   A person has the opportunity to show nothing and say nothing and be left alone.   It's not 'til you say you have something and refuse to show it that the critters come out of the woodwork.

 

MIB