Finding Bigfoot With Google Earth

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

You'd need a pretty powerful weapon and a clear head shot

 

Agreed.

8 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

Or some type of trap that somehow fools them.

 

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! I will NOT dress up as Patty  

[Arvedis]

I was thinking more like a kill zone. I would further use that strategy to disprove a conspiracy theory on  u.s. military and scientific involvement in any BF activities. When science or wildlife experts seek to track a predatory animal it doesn't take much to figure how they do it - with food. There's no habituation zone. There's bait. The fact that they don't do it should be proof enough. A step further with military, you don't send a team of dudes with high powered rifles into the woods without a plan. Where has a kill zone/bait effort ever been done to track BF? Some pro kill research groups do it with debatable results.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Arvedis

[Old Dog]

On 11/19/2018 at 7:43 PM, MindSquatch said:

I use Google Earth quite often in aiding me in narrowing down my search where Bigfoot's may hangout in areas where I can access in a day's hike, and has helped tremendously. When searching, I also try to spot anything that doesn't seem to match the other trees or shadows to see if it could be a possible Bigfoot. Recently I made a post where there is an area where I won't go beyond, I call it a barrier wall where my instincts tells me not to go any further. Yesterday while using Google Earth to check beyond this barrier, I came across something that has the appearance of a massive Bigfoot just beyond that barrier by the creek that comes out of the canyon. This is the area where I've seen three Bigfoot's with multiple track ways. On the picture if you look at the top, it looks like the head of a Bigfoot. The picture is somewhat distorted near the left shoulder, but everything else seems to match a Bigfoot. Just thought I would share. 

 

One huge problem with this ...Google Earth doesn't take street views in the middle of the forest.  In order for this to be a shot of a Sas in the wild, it would have to be on the forest floor taking a portrait, Google only shoots pics of the forest from a satellite out in space, not from a Prius with a camera on it's roof.

[MindSquatch]

3 hours ago, Old Dog said:

 

One huge problem with this ...Google Earth doesn't take street views in the middle of the forest.  In order for this to be a shot of a Sas in the wild, it would have to be on the forest floor taking a portrait, Google only shoots pics of the forest from a satellite out in space, not from a Prius with a camera on it's roof.

Not a huge problem if it isn't a street view when it's coming from a satellite looking down into a canyon in the mountains. 

[Old Time Lifter]

14 hours ago, MindSquatch said:

Not a huge problem if it isn't a street view when it's coming from a satellite looking down into a canyon in the mountains. 

 

So your bf is taking a nap???????

 

As I said earlier in the thread, from above you sure can't see a bent knee or a crest unless your bf is lying on its side.

[MindSquatch]

Your taking this too far and distorting what I originally said for what ever reason. Really shouldn't have to explain again why I use GE, it's not to find Bigfoot's, it's just a side thing while using it to navigate the best path possible. And you assume I'm saying those are for sure Bigfoot's, I'm not saying that at all, they just look like possible Bigfoot'. Good grief! 

[NCBFr]

On 11/25/2018 at 1:31 AM, norseman said:

 

I give out my locations simply because I do not need to be “the guy”. If more pro kill guys are canvassing my areas? All the more power to them.

 

And thanks, I have my fingers crossed.

 

I am with MS.  The less people in a BF area the better.

[wiiawiwb]

I agree. I would NEVER give out my "honey holes".  I worked to find them, return there often, and systematically work the area.  The notion that someone hears about it, goes there, and gets lucky and stumbles across a sasquatch.  Not on my watch.

 

I'm not looking to tell the world about a sighting or encounter so not wanting to share accolades has nothing to do with it. I'm from the old school that believes you should have to work for that which you harvest rather than be given it. If I bring along a friend who is new and he goes back alone another time and gets lucky -- more power to him. I chose that option and would be happy for my friend.

 

 

[norseman]

Nope.

 

Guarding a myth is a fools errand.

 

Just get it done. Plenty of heavy lifting to go around for everyone.

[Old Time Lifter]

31 minutes ago, norseman said:

Nope.

 

Guarding a myth is a fools errand.

 

Just get it done. Plenty of heavy lifting to go around for everyone.

 

Agree and QFT.  Too much of that behavior in the BF world IMHO.

[ShadowBorn]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 3:26 PM, Arvedis said:

I was thinking more like a kill zone. I would further use that strategy to disprove a conspiracy theory on  u.s. military and scientific involvement in any BF activities. When science or wildlife experts seek to track a predatory animal it doesn't take much to figure how they do it - with food. There's no habituation zone. There's bait. The fact that they don't do it should be proof enough. A step further with military, you don't send a team of dudes with high powered rifles into the woods without a plan. Where has a kill zone/bait effort ever been done to track BF? Some pro kill research groups do it with debatable results.

See with the military they have the tools and skills to do a successful snatch and grab. With them there is no need to use bait to lure these creatures in. They can pretty much push these creatures into an area where they can successfully capture one.

 

Sure we can use google earth or even map quest or any other kind of nav tool to get us into an area that we want to explore. Question is will these spots that we are looking at be a place where these creatures be.  In others words do they make sense that these areas are excellent area that provide food and cover as well as protection for these creatures. If we are going to use these tools and explore these areas then we should explore them as though we are going to be hunting in them. That means placing game cams and leaving the area and coming back later in time. The best way is to take the time spent in that area. Take the risk and gain the knowledge that these creatures exist in that area. Document it if possible and if possible collect a specimen .

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Nope.

 

Guarding a myth is a fools errand.

 

Just get it done. Plenty of heavy lifting to go around for everyone. 

Norseman

I am not sure that it is easy to take the life of one of these creatures with out it acting aggressive towards you. I am not sure I am sitting in a stand and see one in front of me I can actually shoot one, even with my bow. I would have to really program myself to do it. Even when I seen my first one I could not draw on it since it just stood there. Makes me wonder why these other hunters who did shoot at them buried them or just left them. I am not sure that it is an easy task.  

[Old Time Lifter]

5 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

See with the military they have the tools and skills to do a successful ****** and grab. With them there is no need to use bait to lure these creatures in. They can pretty much push these creatures into an area where they can successfully capture one.

 

Sure we can use google earth or even map quest or any other kind of nav tool to get us into an area that we want to explore. Question is will these spots that we are looking at be a place where these creatures be.  In others words do they make sense that these areas are excellent area that provide food and cover as well as protection for these creatures. If we are going to use these tools and explore these areas then we should explore them as though we are going to be hunting in them. That means placing game cams and leaving the area and coming back later in time. The best way is to take the time spent in that area. Take the risk and gain the knowledge that these creatures exist in that area. Document it if possible and if possible collect a specimen .

 

Norseman

I am not sure that it is easy to take the life of one of these creatures with out it acting aggressive towards you. I am not sure I am sitting in a stand and see one in front of me I can actually shoot one, even with my bow. I would have to really program myself to do it. Even when I seen my first one I could not draw on it since it just stood there. Makes me wonder why these other hunters who did shoot at them buried them or just left them. I am not sure that it is an easy task.  

10

 

Have you posted your sighting(s) here somewhere?

[Old Dog]

 

8 hours ago, MindSquatch said:

Your taking this too far and distorting what I originally said for what ever reason. Really shouldn't have to explain again why I use GE, it's not to find Bigfoot's, it's just a side thing while using it to navigate the best path possible. And you assume I'm saying those are for sure Bigfoot's, I'm not saying that at all, they just look like possible Bigfoot'. Good grief! 

 

I believe the folks that are making comments that appear to frustrate you, for what ever reason, are referencing this part of your original post.

On 11/30/2018 at 11:21 AM, Old Dog said:

Yesterday while using Google Earth to check beyond this barrier, I came across something that has the appearance of a massive Bigfoot just beyond that barrier by the creek that comes out of the canyon. 

 

I think everyone understands why you are using Google Earth for your navigation, so you really don't need to explain again why you use it,  the problem seems to be with your interpretation of the images you're seeing.  If the large blob that your showing isn't what you are saying "has the appearance of a massive bigfoot", perhaps you could point out to us what you are referencing.

[MindSquatch]

41 minutes ago, Old Dog said:

 

 

I believe the folks that are making comments that appear to frustrate you, for what ever reason, are referencing this part of your original post.

 

I think everyone understands why you are using Google Earth for your navigation, so you really don't need to explain again why you use it,  the problem seems to be with your interpretation of the images you're seeing.  If the large blob that your showing isn't what you are saying "has the appearance of a massive bigfoot", perhaps you could point out to us what you are referencing.

It's anybody's guess of what it could be or may not be, it's not conclusive enough and why GE cannot be use for finding a Bigfoot for research, it's more just for fun. The first photo posted seems to be too big even though to me it does have the likeness of a Bigfoot. The second image to me would have a better chance of actually being a Bigfoot due to the suppose shadow casting it's own shadow. I was a little baffled why you thought it was a street view.

[Airdale]

For anyone interested, here is a basic primer on some of Google Earth's functions. My son introduced me to the program 13 years ago this month, shortly after we migrated from dial-up to broadband internet. Since then I have spent uncounted hours using Google Earth, including looking for our elusive bi-pedal primate. While I do use the mobile version of the app on my phone and tablet, it is much more limited in function and can be difficult to navigate at close range compared to the computer version. The following info is for the PC computer version, not sure if or how it may vary on a Mac.

 

A year of two ago, Google made the Pro version available for free to replace the standard version. To ensure you have the latest version, click the Help button in the menu bar and select about. The dialog box should match the following image, if it doesn't just go to the Google Earth home page in your browser and update to the latest version:

 

 

A quick way to determine if an object is a living creature or a landscape feature is to use the Historical Imagery tool; it is the small clock face icon with a green arrow wrapped around in a counter clockwise direction. To demonstrate I'm using an angled view of Yosemite Valley from about 2,000' above the valley floor. The first image is what shows without activating the function and is from 5/26/14. When you begin using this function you will notice, as in subsequent images, that the newest image may not be the one generally displayed when not using the historical imagery, which is generally the best of recent images. Also, for whatever reason, the views are sometimes out of order with a newer one showing up in an "older" spot on the slider, and sometimes the dates are inconsistent with the image, i.e. an image of a deciduous forest may appear with no leaves showing in an image dated in mid July, or vice-versa.

 

 

 

On all but one of these images, I'm using the Snip tool in Windows to save the images rather than the Save Image button second from the right in the tool bar above the image area in the program. The reason is so that all of the tools and information show, which they do not if using the Save Image button as below:

 

 

This will allow sharing a wider overview of an area without disclosing the actual latitude and longitude, which the OP has expressed a desire to keep confidential.

 

The following are some representative examples of the historical images for this location, though there are many more not shown, more than in less well known areas. Notice that the newest is from 2017, but is of poorer quality than the default 2014 image. The 2012 image, as well as the oldest image from 1987 are both monochrome:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The button fifth from the right is a ruler and opens a dialog box that allows measuring distances in miles or kilometers, or the size of smaller objects using meters, yards, feet, inches, etc. It allows straight line and path measuring, as well as some geometric functions I haven't explored:

 

 

The next image shows a random line measured across the valley floor in feet; note that the result is shown in Map length (point to point), Ground length (accounting for terrain covered) as well as the compass heading of the line:

 

 

There is an option for saving the measurements which allows the line color, width and transparency to be adjusted. Using the push pin icon in the toolbar allows a location to be saved in the same way. The next two images show the dialog boxes for identifying the location and setting the color of the marker pin and the legend appearing on the screen. You can also change the color of the pin or even select a different icon as I did with the tent icon in the second image. Note on the bar to the left of the image area, there is a box for Places. The last entry now shows the location I just saved highlighted in blue. While I have over a hundred saved locations and paths, they only show up in the image area if the box to the left of the item is checked. Things would be pretty crowded on my screen in some areas if all of the saved locations and paths were showing at the same time.

 

 

 

The last item I'll cover is the Photorealistic 3D option (this is also available in the mobile version though the operation is a bit different). This option is relatively recent and new areas are added all the time. The 3-D images are created in a separate operation. The area selected is overflown in a grid pattern by a specially equipped aircraft using eight Hi Def cameras each pointing down at a different angle. The images are compiled by computer algorithm and are pretty spectacular (there is a youtube video explaining the process but you'll have to find it on your own). The option is selected in the Layers section at the bottom of the left hand sidebar. The next image shows the same area in Photorealistic 3-D:

 

 

Hope this is useful. There are many functions I've never used in Google Earth, but if anyone has questions I'll try to answer.

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Airdale
Error correction