Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I remember that discussion well, Data. It was a pretty good one and we see that the technology of cameras and optics continue to merge and improve. I've recently had opportunity to use a new digital Nikon with a 400mm lens that has an incredible ability to capture what would be tiny white dot more than a mile away on its 4" viewscreen and because of its sharpness and resolution was able to make that dot become quite recognizable as a mountain goat (I cant recall the settings but it was handheld in normal daylight with slight overcast). As I mentioned above and have said before, I think our own physical presence on the scene where we are trying to observe a creature such as many think a BF realistically would be is the biggest obstacle and these new capabilities for remote viewing of large landscapes seem to offer a way around that dilemma. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think our own physical presence on the scene where we are trying to observe a creature such as many think a BF realistically would be is the biggest obstacle and these new capabilities for remote viewing of large landscapes seem to offer a way around that dilemma. Exactly, it would be long and tedious work probably without much success, but you eliminate the "pink monkey in the woods" variable, so maybe, just maybe you could catch them a little more relaxed. Good luck on your second year remote viewing during the salmon run TooRisky, hope you have some success, though Pteronarcyd will probably beat us all with his balloon idea, sounds like he put a lot of thought into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I was hoping you'd run with the idea. I have a fear of heights. So it's dark and all of the sudden you feel your balloon rig slowly being pulled in and you can't see what's doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I remember that discussion well, Data. It was a pretty good one and we see that the technology of cameras and optics continue to merge and improve. I've recently had opportunity to use a new digital Nikon with a 400mm lens that has an incredible ability to capture what would be tiny white dot more than a mile away on its 4" viewscreen and because of its sharpness and resolution was able to make that dot become quite recognizable as a mountain goat (I cant recall the settings but it was handheld in normal daylight with slight overcast). As I mentioned above and have said before, I think our own physical presence on the scene where we are trying to observe a creature such as many think a BF realistically would be is the biggest obstacle and these new capabilities for remote viewing of large landscapes seem to offer a way around that dilemma. Cheers. Hey, Dogu my friend. Nice to meet you again! Yes we got the idea quiet far back than A 400mm is shurly nice for that purpose. A friend of mine bought a 1000mm+ telescope. That was fun watching around. With the added DSLR it would have been a quiet good start. Althoug the thing was something about 2500 Euro, but who needs automatic stelar orientation in our case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Exactly, it would be long and tedious work probably without much success, but you eliminate the "pink monkey in the woods" variable, so maybe, just maybe you could catch them a little more relaxed. Good luck on your second year remote viewing during the salmon run TooRisky, hope you have some success, though Pteronarcyd will probably beat us all with his balloon idea, sounds like he put a lot of thought into it. That depends on the approach. As you are actualy generating lots of data involving other big Animals you might find a partner who is looking for such Data (Funding?). So it might not be that unsuccessful, at least for some other animal research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So it's dark and all of the sudden you feel your balloon rig slowly being pulled in and you can't see what's doing it. Given that one would be able to afford a balloon and the helium to fill it, one would, of course, have the balloon equipped with several NV and thermal cameras; thus, one would would be able to see what's pulling you in. But, perhaps the plan needs some minor refinement. For balloon security, the ground tether point should be ringed with game cameras, the bottom of the balloon should be equipped with halogen spotlights for emergency use, and, as a last resort, the balloon should be outfitted with an emergency release lever so one could float away from any possibility of becoming a bigfoot Tootsie pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wildwoman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) bogger, video is interesting but it's as if the falling rock was a signal for the guy below to run out into the clearing. Either that or it was near the bottom and thought OH **** and ran and the above people really didn't have a clue that something was there. As for wearing a gorilla suit out in the woods to go for a stroll, most around here carry when hiking or horseback riding. Hopefully they wouldn't shoot. Edited June 17, 2011 by wildwoman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 bogger, video is interesting but it's as if the falling rock was a signal for the guy below to run out into the clearing. Either that or it was near the bottom and thought OH **** and ran and the above people really didn't have a clue that something was there. As for wearing a gorilla suit out in the woods to go for a stroll, most around here carry when hiking or horseback riding. Hopefully they wouldn't shoot. Wow, did you even read this thread and know what it is about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Initially I didn't respond to this thread because of the title. Sure it can be a good idea to use elevation to spot your target. Then after spotting one you got to use old school tactics to get close enough to be certain. On the other hand preds are smarter than game. They know when something is out of place. Like the outline of couple of dorks in the open on the top of a hill or crest with scopes. Plus they can smell our scent better in a position like that Bf's are very observant and careful most of the time. They don't just crash through the bush and walk out into the open like in the movies for people to film. However there was that one time back in 67 anyways JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 12345dvf Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 i think its a cool idea and cool video but how much does a large zoom cam cost no one wants to break the bank on a camera that they dont know will actaully capture anything and if it does it will be for a short period that a bf will be in the picture cool topic 12345dvf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Initially I didn't respond to this thread because of the title. Sure it can be a good idea to use elevation to spot your target. Then after spotting one you got to use old school tactics to get close enough to be certain. On the other hand preds are smarter than game. They know when something is out of place. Like the outline of couple of dorks in the open on the top of a hill or crest with scopes. Plus they can smell our scent better in a position like that Bf's are very observant and careful most of the time. They don't just crash through the bush and walk out into the open like in the movies for people to film. However there was that one time back in 67 anyways JMO Good points. Specially the scent. On the other hand there are much Reports of people observing exactly this. BF in the open at long range (ridges, clearings, ...). Usually this encounters last longer than the short distance one, indicating that BF isnt to concerned/aware of someone hundreds of yards away. This may also be a clue to how far BFs senses are developed. Does he even see god at long range? How good is his nose? How good his ears? On what does he rely most? Its just a idea but with all the callblasting of most likely nonsense (we dont know what what means), People intruding his place and so on, I as human would also go to stealth mode. Maybe to get up close is just what keeps us from "finding" BF. Maybe we are driving him through the woods by this. All in all we know it doesnt work well until today. That was also the basic idea behind the long distance idea. Try something basically new. Lets think about bears. They are most dangerous when surprised, even worse if a female with young ones. But they arent to aware of their surroundings why they should as they are on top of the food-chain. Thats what makes them most dangerous, and is the reason for most encounters. If a bear would be more aware he most likely would flee before you ever see him, and you only would get him in close if you trick him with knowledge about his behavior. We dont know about the behavior of BF and until now we could not lure them in. So if he is aware of his near surroundings with a general tendency to stealth, why shouldnt we only get long distance Blobsquatches or "something" inconclusive hiding somewhere in the bush? Although this doesnt fully explain why we dont get one on trail cam, but the trialcam is a very short range approach. If you dont see in the usual human spectrum camouflage painting might just not do the trick. And to take a far fetched possibility, if BF is nomadic how does he orient himself? The magnetic field, like birds? Is he sensing electric equipment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 As per Data's thoughts on habitat for BF, and regarding the notion of BF mostly being denizens of the dense forests of the northwest; it is worth keeping in mind that regardless of where one is in the Pacific Northwest, if you are near mountains you are never more than a few thousand feet away from alpine conditions, though you have to think in terms of verticality. Even in the Hoh River Valley in the Olympics, once you get up a few thousand feet the ferns, red cedar, hemlock and spruce give way to sub-alpine fir, krumholtz, mountain juniper and heathers. If BF were as capable of travelling off trail and bushwhacking up hill as I think a creature such as it is so often described, it might find going up to gather a few marmots, ground squirrels or pica a lot more effective than waiting for salmon or berries. We humans are not very pre-disposed to bushwhacking and prefer to travel for miles on trails better suited to 4 legged browsers like elk, with slight grades so we can carry our material culture along with us on our backs...something BF seem not too concerned over. I think it's part of the reason why their tracks are not all over the trails in areas where they might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 As always, very good thoughts dogu. It got me thinking about the trail-cams once again. Where are they placed? If someone is looking for deer they surly are close to trails (?). And, at least on the BF TV-Shows, they also seem to often use deer-trails as "good spots". Why is this? I can understand the basic thinking behind it, but as dogu mentioned, BF might just not use/need this trails, and there are thousand of these cams and not much BFs are seen (if any). By the way, does anybody know if the monsterquest crew left any longtime surveillance equipment there? Trail-cams or anything? It should be worth more than a weekend or two of people stumbling around. At least a hell of a bear should be around there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wildwoman Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Wow, did you even read this thread and know what it is about? Yes... just responding to the stupid video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Yes... just responding to the stupid video. If you had read this thread, you would have realized that this thread is about discussing long range cameras, the video was only posted as an example of a long range video. There is a different thread for discussing the video, it is found here: Mt. St. Helens has activity again?. If you would like to discuss cameras and long range zooms, please do so, if you want to discuss the video, please go to the correct thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts