Jump to content

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

If a bunch of drones flying at low altitude over supposed Bigfoot hot-spots cannot detect, and prove, their existence.....then I'd say we should all just 'hang it up', and go home.

 

Maybe it's too much holiday egg nog, but for the first time ever I agree with Sweaty :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

It’s a method that’s been experimented with in recent years. The problem encountered is that the “hotspots” tend to have dense foliage and timber that prevent sightings from an aerial perspective both with and without thermal imaging.

 

Effective surveying of forested areas will require technology that allows for a camera-carrying craft to safely and quietly travel through such an environment while maintaining enough signal strength. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

^

 

You're welcome, hiflier. :)  

 

And, thanks, for the Holiday wishes! We had a very good Christmas. I hope you, and yours, are having a good Holiday season, also.  :drinks: 

 

A suggestion for next year....I'd recommend asking for a drone....(with an on-board camera). I've been thinking about it, and I think one of the best ways of settling the mystery of Bigfoot...is with the use of drones.

 

If a bunch of drones flying at low altitude over supposed Bigfoot hot-spots cannot detect, and prove, their existence.....then I'd say we should all just 'hang it up', and go home. My guess is that, ultimately, drones will be what settles this issue.  

 

 

 Dense forrest or not, I would think flying drones over river ways and so on would be a thought in Addition to the woods.  They would be cheaper and more effective than a helicopter.

 

it would seem to me you would need a Roger Patterson scenario.  Someone call the Drone Club and reports some tracks to them at ABC creek at XYZ. River valley in the PNW.

 

Drone Club shows up and flies drones over very large area to the extent battery life holds.  Cover the same area, distances, and so on Pattersonand Gimlin did in a couple weeks in just a couple hours.

I have never owned a drone but it seems the internet is telling me about 30 min is the time of flight max for a more expensive drone.  Wonder how much territory could be covered in 15 minutes out and. 15 min back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say it's a step up from Meldrum and Munns' respective blimp and helicopter/porch swing ideas from recent years :)

 

What happens when the drones don't find them?

 

Where do we go but, as Sweaty put it, "home" ???

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you ever want to be on such a team, Squatchy? Might be interesting . And besides, yu know proponents, if at first you don't succeed........ ;) I think it goes without saying that striking when the iron is hot would be difficult even if a team was 'on call' 24/7. I do agree though that drones would create the best possible chances BUT then again there that photo video thing, coupled with today's CGI, that will keep doubters continuing to doubt. Drones are a lot of time and expense too. But then it's like anything else, one would need to be consistent and not just get the thing airborne only three times a year. Might be a good way to look for a carcass in the Spring before things leaf out or in Autumn for the same reason though Spring time has better chances.

 

SWWASAS flies in his own rig just for that purpose so why not drones. Norseman showed a video on one for the Forums of a guy who landed his drone in his back yard five miles away. The camera on the thing was fun to watch during the trek.   I also agree that creeks and ponds would be easier to access from the air. Who knows. If a program is going to get up and running though it should happen soon before access to such areas becomes more restricted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya'll got me thinking about drones a little more.   The notion has been percolating in the mental ether for a while.   There's an area I'm "skeered" of but very curious about.  The satellite images suggested it was a sphagnum bog a mile long an a half mile across.   In person, though, it appears to be a willow bog.  That's a whole different problem.   There's a river going in one end and coming out the other larger but no apparent channels.   Willows means water is at or near the surface which means breaking through is a serious consideration.   With that much flow slightly sub-surface with root masses, etc, there's a pretty good risk of drowning and never being found if you go through.

 

I've only seen the bog from one side.   If the other is fairly open, a sphagnum bog, cameras on the slope might be worthwhile.  I've had bigfoot or bigfoot-seeming activity in all directions out 2-3 miles from that bog.   If it is as bad as it looks, they might avoid it.   If it isn't that bad, it might be a perfect "core" because it's effectively unapproachable on two sides and the other two only approachable for someone vaguely unhinged.  (Hmmm ... I resemble that!)

 

A drone seemed like a good way to explore the whole thing, at least superficially, quickly and with no risk.

 

Turns out, so far as I can tell, to be illegal.    The area is in a congressionally-designated wilderness area.   Drones are considered mechanical transportation.   They're legally limited to 500 feet or less above ground level.   Wilderness rules forbid operation of aircraft below 2000 feet above the ground.   If someone finds out something different, please let me know, but for now, so much for that idea.

 

The other use I imagined has the same problem, slightly different details.   A couple areas not too far from here are designated wildlife wintering areas and are closed to motorized entry.    A fly-over along the roads looking for tracks in the snow, which is usually only a half foot to two feet deep, seems useful, but ... not legal, either.

 

The rest of the area where they'd be legal to use is either not good bigfoot "habitat" because it is open oak savanna or it is big evergreen timber you can't see into in blocks so large you'd never be able to herd anything or surround it.    They look like fun.   One of the local weather guys has a higher end drone and comes back with cool footage but it's not really applicable to bigfooting.   At least not here.    Somewhere else, different conditions, different rules, maybe?

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to start a thread MIB? Is there one already somewhere? Think Norseman has one in his research thread but perhaps one more public would get some wider input. Besides I have an idea that may be the next best thing that involves a network of sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really?   I'm not sure what the message would be or the question would be.   I think I said what I had to say.  Without giving out the details of location, posting maps, etc, which I'm not going to do, I can't go much further on my train of thought.   If you have something along those general lines, though, go ahead and start it and if it triggers an idea, I'll be happy to chime in, I just don't have a direction I want to go so I can't really lead.  :)    

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MIB said:

Ya'll got me thinking about drones a little more.   The notion has been percolating in the mental ether for a while.   There's an area I'm "skeered" of but very curious about.  The satellite images suggested it was a sphagnum bog a mile long an a half mile across.   In person, though, it appears to be a willow bog.  That's a whole different problem.   There's a river going in one end and coming out the other larger but no apparent channels.   Willows means water is at or near the surface which means breaking through is a serious consideration.   With that much flow slightly sub-surface with root masses, etc, there's a pretty good risk of drowning and never being found if you go through.

 

I've only seen the bog from one side.   If the other is fairly open, a sphagnum bog, cameras on the slope might be worthwhile.  I've had bigfoot or bigfoot-seeming activity in all directions out 2-3 miles from that bog.   If it is as bad as it looks, they might avoid it.   If it isn't that bad, it might be a perfect "core" because it's effectively unapproachable on two sides and the other two only approachable for someone vaguely unhinged.  (Hmmm ... I resemble that!)

 

A drone seemed like a good way to explore the whole thing, at least superficially, quickly and with no risk.

 

Turns out, so far as I can tell, to be illegal.    The area is in a congressionally-designated wilderness area.   Drones are considered mechanical transportation.   They're legally limited to 500 feet or less above ground level.   Wilderness rules forbid operation of aircraft below 2000 feet above the ground.   If someone finds out something different, please let me know, but for now, so much for that idea.

 

The other use I imagined has the same problem, slightly different details.   A couple areas not too far from here are designated wildlife wintering areas and are closed to motorized entry.    A fly-over along the roads looking for tracks in the snow, which is usually only a half foot to two feet deep, seems useful, but ... not legal, either.

 

The rest of the area where they'd be legal to use is either not good bigfoot "habitat" because it is open oak savanna or it is big evergreen timber you can't see into in blocks so large you'd never be able to herd anything or surround it.    They look like fun.   One of the local weather guys has a higher end drone and comes back with cool footage but it's not really applicable to bigfooting.   At least not here.    Somewhere else, different conditions, different rules, maybe?

 

MIB

 

It depends. The Selway Bitteroot and Frank Church wilderness areas in Idaho allow for back country airstrips and bush flying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MIB said:

Not really?   I'm not sure what the message would be or the question would be.   I think I said what I had to say.  Without giving out the details of location, posting maps, etc, which I'm not going to do, I can't go much further on my train of thought.   If you have something along those general lines, though, go ahead and start it and if it triggers an idea, I'll be happy to chime in, I just don't have a direction I want to go so I can't really lead.  :)    

 

MIB

 

I'll give it some thought because what I'm thinking about would definitely benefit from the use of drones. This thread is drifting so I would rather not go into things here.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

It depends. The Selway Bitteroot and Frank Church wilderness areas in Idaho allow for back country airstrips and bush flying.

 

 

 

 

Your video here makes it clear to me you would really need infrared, night vision, or some other thing like it.  I say this because when I watch this video it looks like you could easily fly over a person hiking and miss them.  

 

If some drone or similar footage was designed just to 'see' bigfoot on sky video, then just flying over and doing a playback might make sense.   If what we want is more of a real time reaction to what we see it would just seem we would need night vision or other detection.  That way a second or third drone could react and double check what is suspected on the first one.

 

This video which is somewhat open countryside is still able to hide a lot of things which would include a person or animal.   Now if someone or something was drinking out of the creek Patty Style then I think it could be seen on the drone and the drone could react.  Apart from the open creek/riverbed you have to have night vision/ heat vision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we've talked about it before but my own suspicion is that a sasquatch is going to hear the drone coming a mile away and tuck itself away out of sight.  Drones are loud and are not going to sneak up on any sasquatch. 

 

I think Norse said they can't be heard above 800'. If that's true, that's a LONG distance to try and get the proverbial visible and clear picture or video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it legal to fly a drone that high?   I thought the regs I saw said 500 feet or below only.   

 

Thinking of ducking ... funny thing, I don't know why I do it, but I duck behind trees when I hear planes and helicopters go over.   I have nothing to hide, but hide I do.   And, on an even more tangential tangent, there's a mountain not so far away that has been completely flattened on top by mining creating a "table top" a few hundred yards across in any direction.   It is a hub with streams feeding several rivers originating on various parts of the slope so it should be a great place to record sounds from lots of directions.  I'd like to camp on top with recorders slightly over the side.   Problem: that place creeps me out.   Feels like sitting on top of an altar waiting to be sacrificed.   I recognize the irrationality, but still ... visceral shudder.  

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

I know we've talked about it before but my own suspicion is that a sasquatch is going to hear the drone coming a mile away and tuck itself away out of sight.  Drones are loud and are not going to sneak up on any sasquatch. 

 

I think Norse said they can't be heard above 800'. If that's true, that's a LONG distance to try and get the proverbial visible and clear picture or video.

 

Do other animals flee drones.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...