Jump to content
Madison5716

Searching For Bigfoot in Oregon - Take 2

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

You are onto something there.     It is a one way thing.      If Nelson is right their speech is so rapid,   learning it would be very difficult.    And for sure we do not have opportunity to sit and watch them talk to each other and learn something that way.    The only way I can see learning theirs would be in a real habituation situation where the human can be face to face for periods of time.    Most habituation situations the BF are still very reclusive and do not give much face time.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ Nelson is right about the rapidity of morphemes.  He may be missing two  other things though.    There is a limit to how fast a mind can turn audible input to information and assimilate it, also a limit to how fast it can translate information to signal and utter it.   There are also differences in the data-density of languages.   (These may make more sense to an IT person than to a linguist.)   The critical point is how much of what is uttered is actually information and how much is "white noise" to slow the signal stream down to something the brain can absorb and use.      In other words, us humans have our nonsense bits like "errr" and "ahh" and "uhhh" which we speak while our brain is trying to find the correct words.   They're empty filler.    Those are things we have no way to measure with sasquatch.      He is clearly correct about the speed of delivery of the morphemes.    However, until we can translate the language, we don't really know how fast they are exchanging information with those fast morphemes.   

 

Despite rapid-sounding exchanges, the actual exchange of information could be slower than ours, equal to ours, or much faster than ours ... and we have no way to know.   

 

If .. just playing "if" games here .. if their information density matches or exceeds ours per-morpheme, and they are delivering several times more morphemes per unit time than we can, we are entirely outclassed, not just in speed of discussion, but also in speed of mental processing.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthWind

Yep, in the analysis of the audio that I did last evening, it does seem that there are the standard cooling down pings. I am quite familiar with those sounds. But one of them sounds like a pebble hitting metal. And I have no idea what went near the recorder just minutes before we showed back up. Seemed like it was something moving around near the recorder. There are also what sound like semi-distant huffs. But I cannot tell if they are very distant gunshots. They are quite faint. But it is elk hunting season.

 

The first recorder we dropped picked up nothing unusual, but it did offer me a glimpse into the area. Most of the audio is dead quiet. An occasional raven or plane overhead. But at about the 50 minute mark, the birds finally "came back" and started their normal ambient chorus. I was surprised it took that long. So even if you don't get anything sasquatchian, you can still learn from the audio.

 

We definitely need to do some more investigation in that area. Even if it's just for the chanterelles! Doggone those were good! And now I know I can safely ID them, which makes me quite happy. Bet they'd be good with some good sausages cooked up on an overnighter. 

 

A plotwatcher is something I want to get. But it doesn't work in the dark, which may actually be helpful since these creatures seem to be able to avoid the night vision stuff. Next on my list though is a FLIR. Taking forever to save up enough $. Especially with the new dog that adopted me on our last trip. Cost a few bucks in vet bills for shots, and supplies. He sure is cool, though. 

8 minutes ago, MIB said:

However, until we can translate the language, we don't really know how fast they are exchanging information with those fast morphemes.   

 

 

And that is assuming there is only one language they are using. My guess is, like the NA's, there are many.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

^^^^^ Funny but I have thought the same thing.     Listening to the Sierra Sounds my gut feeling,  I am no linguist, but it seems to me that a lot of what comes out is like you say, noise for emphasis.    Growls, grunts, etc etc.    Perhaps their evolution of language has been slower than human and they are in the transition phase of coming out of animalistic sounds and into actual language.    If so,  I would think that they have a lot of junk sounds mixed in with language.    The human equivalent is a toddler,  who knows words, but commonly expresses feelings in the form of crying,   whining,  and just plain gibberish sounds.    For the most part that is what I get out of Sierra Sounds in a lot of cases.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
27 minutes ago, NorthWind said:

A plotwatcher is something I want to get. But it doesn't work in the dark, which may actually be helpful since these creatures seem to be able to avoid the night vision stuff.

 

The outfit that makes the Plotwatcher Pro has a suspended web site account at this time. Trailcampro has not had Plotwatchers in stock for some time. I do not know what is happening with "Day 6" company.  Don't hold your breath.

Many brands of trail cameras offer the option to turn off illumination.  You can have a trail camera, illumination set to off, operating on motion detection and time lapse.  Operating in darkness in motion sensor mode  without flash will give you a time stamp. Using TrailMaster 550 series passive IR monitors will give time stamps of activity. Aim them way high, above bear and deer level. The plastic housings are not ABS and do not absorb odors. I have had 'hits' at times that I least expected. The largest grouping was at about 1PM. It was in an area and time that they previously allowed me to hear samurai chatter. Day or night, make no assumptions.

Edited by Catmandoo
more text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

There are so many knock offs of  Plotwatcher and other such cameras they can be found on Amazon for a fraction of what a real Plotwatcher cost.   Given the chance of human pilfering it is best to deploy as inexpensive a gadget that does the job.   I cannot say it enough but the need some people have for night cameras  (IR) because they think that BF is only active at night is just plain wrong in many areas.    That to me is Finding Bigfoot dogma.     If humans are not around much in the daytime in an area, BF moves around, hunting or gathering.    If should be obvious to anyone who accepts the P/G film as authentic,   that film was taken in broad daylight in an area with few humans.    Find such an area, hit it mid week when humans are not hiking,  move as quietly as possible,  and you have far more chance of getting a BF photograph than you can even dream of in the dark.  

 

Of course if you are someplace where humans are always present in numbers, then you should expect BF has compensated for that and normally only move around at night when they can stay out of sight.   

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

1296P Body Worn Camera for Police, Wandwoo Police Body Camera with 64GB Memory Infrared Night Vision Wide Angle IP66 Waterproof Photo Video Audio Recorder 2inch Display for Law Enforcement Police

 
Here is a police body cam for less than a plotwatcher.   It also can operate at night.    They say it can record for 8 hours.   This would be a good camera to attach to your pack straps and record in the field or leave running inside your vehicle when you are in the field or camping at night.   There is all kinds of gear out there that can be adapted to BF research.   Game cameras are big,  hard to hide,   emit IR,  and probably not the best thing for most uses.   
 
 
 

   
Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthWind

If only I had more disposable income.

 

Thanks though!  :-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716
2 hours ago, MIB said:

We are, IMHO, dealing with something that consciously thinks and strategizes, not something limited to instinct and learned / conditioned behaviors.   That's what makes this "fun" and interesting: we are likely matching wits with "beings" that are trying to do to us, without getting caught, exactly what we are doing to them, without getting caught .. observe and study.  

 

Love this! 

 

Also, chanterelles! We should disguise ourselves as innocent mushroom hunters enjoying a nice day in the woods ... don't look behind the curtain at the cameras and audio recorders,  lol!

 

20191102_172458.jpg

Edited by Madison5716
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
32 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I cannot say it enough but the need some people have for night cameras  (IR) because they think that BF is only active at night is just plain wrong in many areas.

 

I guess?   That's not exactly right for me.    I use both "regular" and Plotwatcher cameras deploying each where its strengths are maximized and its weaknesses are minimized.  The triggered cameras I use take pictures 24 hours a day, it's not a matter of giving up daytime pictures just to be able to get night pictures.    The flash and trigger operate at about the same distance so I'm not giving up anything so far as location through having to place them where the subject is forced into flash range because if I don't, it's also not within daytime trigger range.    For the timed Plotwatcher cameras, I mostly use them with magnifying lenses for handheld "movie" cameras for observing longer distances / bigger spaces where a regular camera wouldn't trigger anyway, day or night.    2x is nice.  I have one 3.8X lens as well.   My main use is the shoreline of a small lake in the Cascades where there are funny large footprints out from shore into the water far enough that a triggered camera won't pick up the track-makers.  I set them up about 150 yards away on the opposite shore up in the trees looking across and down onto the far side of the lake, grassy area beyond, and timber line behind the grass.    I've gotten some interesting stuff .. but no bigfoots yet.

 

MIB

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmknight
3 hours ago, Madison5716 said:

 

Love this! 

 

Also, chanterelles! We should disguise ourselves as innocent mushroom hunters enjoying a nice day in the woods ... don't look behind the curtain at the cameras and audio recorders,  lol!

 

20191102_172458.jpg

Or better yet, buy a small telescope and start observing the moon and planets, making yourself out to be amateur astronomers. You can look through the eyepiece, and, at the same time, focus your ears, listening for footfalls, breathing, etc. As an actual amateur astronomer, I have done this, and caught them sneaking up on me to better see what I was doing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

I thought of that, too. I agree!  Not being obvious might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

Date & Time - Sunday,  November 3, afternoon

Weather  - Spectacular, 45°F and sunshine

Location - the lake

What Happened- I returned to tey to get some casts of the possible prints that I found. I ended up with three casts, which are curing and then I have to clean them. There's just a ton of prints, but only a few areas with barefoot prints.  I cast 3 of four in a line, and one small one from further away - but I lost that one unfortunately, and I was out of casting materials. 

 

Some of the prints were 5 inches long. Being a preschool teacher, I went to work and measured my kids feet. Turns out 5" belong to children between 20 and 30 months old on average (a year and a half to 2 1/2). Huh.

20191103_134914.jpg

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

Whether bigfoot or human, these are cute!

20191103_134830.jpg

8 hours ago, MIB said:

My main use is the shoreline of a small lake in the Cascades where there are funny large footprints out from shore into the water far enough that a triggered camera won't pick up the track-makers.

 

I'm sure if any of my prints are bigfoots, they are juveniles. What size are your prints? And, I think that's awesome. Got any pix?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Pictures .. nothing detailed.  

 

The lake is a glacial tarn.   In the last 10-12K years, silt and fine rock flour from the grinding of boulders in the rock slide where the spring feeding the lake has accumulated, settled, and solidified to a fairly hard mud 8-10-12 inches deep overlaying the hard rock base layer.   When I walk in that hardened mud, I don't punch clear through to rock, I settle in about 6-8 inches, then remain suspended, maybe really slowly sinking.   It's a weird feeling ... act of faith to stay there and hope I'm not going to keep going down and get stuck or drown.    The water level varies by maybe as much as a foot during the year.   There are no tracks on dry land, nor on the shelf that is sometimes exposed, sometimes not, nor in the water that is under 4-6 inches deep, the tracks are all out in deeper water .. looks like out as far as it is 6-8 feet or more deep.    This bothered me for a while but I realized the missing tracks were simply filled in / washed away / obscured by wave action at the edge of the water as the lake level rises and falls.   

 

The tracks punch through the hard mud clear to base rock.    My weight isn't nearly great enough to do so .. the pressure (pounds per square inch of my foot bottom) is not great enough to do so.   Whoever / whatever made them is **heavy** for their foot size, not just heavy overall.    I can only go clear through to base rock by stepping in those tracks with my own foot ... lemme tell you, THAT is a weird feeling.   In the bottom of the tracks, about 1.5 inches of fine, soft silty material has accumulated.     When the feet went into the harder mud, they punched through and expelled / pushed aside a lot of material.   As the feet came back out, some of it fell back into place partially re-closing the area around the ankle.    What remains on the surface is smaller than the "footprint" on the base rock.     There are visible flex-cracks in the older harder mud.   I've been going there since 2013.   Each spring the leaves on the plants in the lake bottom are green but maybe half obscured by a faint accumulation of silt from the winter.    Initially I thought the tracks were same year, no more than 2-3 years old.   Then I thought maybe 10 years.   Now, as my base of experience with them grows, my estimate grows.    Shoot, they could be well over 50 years old, maybe a couple hundred?  If they are, I don't know that "whoever" left them will return in my lifetime.  

 

So far as considering them bigfoot tracks .. maybe.    There is a very high arch which goes clear across ... could be mid-tarsal break, especially considering how feet do funny things flexing in flexible materials.    That "arch" structure is so high my heel would not bottom out in the heel pocket of the track while the ball of my foot was anywhere near the bottom of the front pocket.  I'd say 1.5 - 2 inches high, possibly higher.    My impression is the whole foot is about 1.5 inches wider at the heel than mine and about 1.5 inches wider at the ball than mine.   It was at least 13 inches long.   I didn't feel toe marks so it could be quite a bit longer yet.

 

In other words, the foot seems to be in line with the 15.5x5 inch tracks I've been finding all over the general region there.  

 

I'll try to find / post a picture looking out over the lake showing the track lines out underwater.   Might need a nudge / reminder. 

 

MIB

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...