Answers To A Question?

[Guest RightBoot]

I've been lurking on this site for a few days,and decided to join tonight because I have a questions I would like to explore with people who may be more knowledgable on the subject than I am. As an avid hunter and fisherman I spend more than my fair share of time in the woods. I freely admit to getting "Creepy" feelings while in the woods at times. In fact I had one particular treestand that I could never relax in because I always felt uneasy while setting in it. My mind is open enough to entertain the possibality of a Bigfoot type creature. But one thing I cant stop overlooking is the sheer volume of trail cameras out there being used by hunters. It would not surprise me if there was a million of them floating around the country. I personally collected over a 1,000 images on my two cameras in the last year of all sorts of wildlife. The number of sportsmen like my self who use trailcameras mulitplied by all the excelent High quality images they take lead me to think if there was something out there Someone would have gotten a clear undeniable image by now. Once again I want to make it clear that Im not coming on here to be a naysayer or start a flame war. I am just honestly courious about the subject.

[Rod]

Welcome, and what are your questions?

[Guest]

I've been lurking on this site for a few days,and decided to join tonight because I have a questions I would like to explore with people who may be more knowledgable on the subject than I am. As an avid hunter and fisherman I spend more than my fair share of time in the woods. I freely admit to getting "Creepy" feelings while in the woods at times. In fact I had one particular treestand that I could never relax in because I always felt uneasy while setting in it. My mind is open enough to entertain the possibality of a Bigfoot type creature. But one thing I cant stop overlooking is the sheer volume of trail cameras out there being used by hunters. It would not surprise me if there was a million of them floating around the country. I personally collected over a 1,000 images on my two cameras in the last year of all sorts of wildlife. The number of sportsmen like my self who use trailcameras mulitplied by all the excelent High quality images they take lead me to think if there was something out there Someone would have gotten a clear undeniable image by now. Once again I want to make it clear that Im not coming on here to be a naysayer or start a flame war. I am just honestly courious about the subject.

This kind of question is a tough one to get behind one way or the other, because yes- you are right. You would think with all the trail cams out there someone would have captured something by now. Then again, one could explain it away by saying that Bigfoot usually resides in the thick of the forest that is the farthest from where humans frequent. I am not a hunter so you could answer this better than I could, but don't hunters usually stay pretty much on the periphery of the forest? I would imagine that the farther in you go the more dangerous it is, and that there is a point where the extra risk does not give you any better chance of finding what you are hunting.

The other thing is that the forested areas are just so HUGE; entire planes go down in the PNW and are never found... huge, shiny, silver, stationary cylinders that burn and smolder for days go down in these areas and are never found. The area is absolutely huge, and hunters and their trail cams only cover a very, very small percentage of it, and presumably it is the area that BF would frequent the least.

Of course, this explanation is very convenient, as are many explanations for many things-Bigfoot.

[Guest RightBoot]

This kind of question is a tough one to get behind one way or the other, because yes- you are right. You would think with all the trail cams out there someone would have captured something by now. Then again, one could explain it away by saying that Bigfoot usually resides in the thick of the forest that is the farthest from where humans frequent. I am not a hunter so you could answer this better than I could, but don't hunters usually stay pretty much on the periphery of the forest? I would imagine that the farther in you go the more dangerous it is, and that there is a point where the extra risk does not give you any better chance of finding what you are hunting.

The other thing is that the forested areas are just so HUGE; entire planes go down in the PNW and are never found... huge, shiny, silver, stationary cylinders that burn and smolder for days go down in these areas and are never found. The area is absolutely huge, and hunters and their trail cams only cover a very, very small percentage of it, and presumably it is the area that BF would frequent the least.

Of course, this explanation is very convenient, as are many explanations for many things-Bigfoot.

[Rod]

If your question is particular to whether or not the sasquatch can detect trail cams, give this thread a read:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/4410-gamecams/page__p__51337__hl__%2Btrail+%2Bcamera__fromsearch__1#entry51337

[Guest RightBoot]

I see what your saying about the remote country. And yes most hunters arent 200 miles in the backcountry. Thats kinda what sparked my question about the trail cameras. Because it seems that alot of the videos and pics people claim to be of a bigfoot arent either. So it just kinda made me wonder why its always some guy stumbling onto one with a shakey video camera. Or these shows that are becoming so popular nowadays with people running around in the woods with thermal imaging cameras claiming to see them evertwhere they go. Why not saturate an area thats reported to be a "Hotspot" for activity with trailcameras at likely locations such as trails, watering holes, foodsources, etc. The same as we would do for any other game we were scouting. I guess what Im getting at is that it seems to me someone would have a better chance of documenting a bigfoot with a low key tread lightly approach. Im pretty sure if I scouted a new piece of Property for Deer by running around in the woods with a video camera and talking on walkie talkies the results would be less than stellar..lol I was Just wondering what others thoughts on this were. And if this was a tactic that was often employed.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Good observations, Rightboot.

It seems to me the crux of the matter is more whether BF are hearing or seeing the trail cams. Check out the link on Rod's post for discussion about that.

It seems to me that most times I see a trail cam set by BF researchers (when they show video or pictures of their sets online) they don't carefully hide them. Black horizontal straps around a tree, big square shape sticking out from a trunk, no branches or leaves covering it, etc. etc.

IMHO BF are highly intelligent and very observant of their home range.

It would seem that camera sets with telephoto lenses would be a much better option, but trail cams are set up for wide angle. If you could set up a trail cam with a 135 mm lense, for example, then you could set it up well into a tree to cover a section of trail. The limitation would be that you couldn't get effective night shots without a remote flash set up. The idea is to hide the sounds the camera makes and to hide any flash if possible.

Or better yet, get into a hide for a few days, well concealed with good telephoto equipment set back from a target meadow or stream, for example.

I'm not a big fan of the "going wackabout" method. The results don't seem to do more than rile them up and maybe get some audio, but almost never getting good video.

[Guest]

Why not video-record a trailcam as it takes a photo at night, utilizing the camcorder's nightshot mode? If the trail cam emits visible IR it should show up. Sadly, my camcorder doesn't have this option. I'm not sure how much of the IR spectrum would be covered, but it might yield some useful information. If bigfoot is detecting trailcams, it should be possible to determine what the "give away" is. It might also be electronic "noise" from the EMF generated by the trailcam, the smell of the plastic housing, or some other cause. I tend to discount a poor camo job being the sole reason for trailcam's lack of success.

[Guest]

I saw an interesting program about the Orang Pendek. A smallish bipedal ape said to exist in Indonesia. Of all the cryptid bipedal apes in the world, I would say it's the one that's given the most credence because two people who have reported seeing one are very respected in their fields. Can’t remember their names at this writing, but if memory serves one is wildlife biologist and the other is a wildlife photographer. The latter posited a theory that may be relevant to the Bigfoot trail cam problem.

After his eyewitness account of an Orang Pendek (he didn’t have his equipment on him at the time), he set up trail cams in numerous spots on game trails. After several weeks, he collected the photos from those cams and said that he got pictures of virtually every animal known to live in the jungle in Sumatra. After studying the photos, he realized that tigers used the trails to hunt. Tigers would be a very real threat to the Orang Pendek. He formed the theory that the Orang Pendek avoids the game trails to avoid run ins with tigers.

You could transpose that theory to Bigfoot territory as well. In the PNW, grizzlies and black bear often are spotted on game trails hunting. In addition, humans use game trails to hunt. If we are to suppose that one, both the Orang Pendek and Bigfoot exist and two, Bigfoot is at least as intelligent as the Orang Pendek, then it’s fair to assume that the Bigfoot would use the same “off the game trail,†strategy.

Just a theory, but I thought it was interesting.

[Guest TooRisky]

I have seen a trail-cam with IR flash through my 3rd gen IR monocular and it is what you would expect a flash to look like, but only in the IR... So if a species can see into the IR the flash will literally light up the forest... The most probable tell to a BF...

Also it does not seem game and BF travel the same trails, so hunters putting their cams on game trails and at plots quite simply may not be where the BF are... IMHO of course...

[Guest RightBoot]

The reason I wondering about all this is me & a million other Americans have been watching the new "Bigfoot" show, and what i see these guys doing just seems silly to me. If a Sasquatch can somehow "Sense" a trailcam and avoid it, what do they hope to gain by running around in the woods, with night vision goggles, and thermal imaging cameras. I would think its a hell of alot easier to sense an bunch of people running around in your backyard than it would one little plastic box...Jmho. I didnt know if this was accepted practice in the field of Bigfoot investagating or just high drama for television.

[Guest Lesmore]

I saw an interesting program about the Orang Pendek. A smallish bipedal ape said to exist in Indonesia. Of all the cryptid bipedal apes in the world, I would say it's the one that's given the most credence because two people who have reported seeing one are very respected in their fields. Can’t remember their names at this writing, but if memory serves one is wildlife biologist and the other is a wildlife photographer. The latter posited a theory that may be relevant to the Bigfoot trail cam problem.

After his eyewitness account of an Orang Pendek (he didn’t have his equipment on him at the time), he set up trail cams in numerous spots on game trails. After several weeks, he collected the photos from those cams and said that he got pictures of virtually every animal known to live in the jungle in Sumatra. After studying the photos, he realized that tigers used the trails to hunt. Tigers would be a very real threat to the Orang Pendek. He formed the theory that the Orang Pendek avoids the game trails to avoid run ins with tigers.

You could transpose that theory to Bigfoot territory as well. In the PNW, grizzlies and black bear often are spotted on game trails hunting. In addition, humans use game trails to hunt. If we are to suppose that one, both the Orang Pendek and Bigfoot exist and two, Bigfoot is at least as intelligent as the Orang Pendek, then it’s fair to assume that the Bigfoot would use the same “off the game trail,†strategy.

Just a theory, but I thought it was interesting.

There are too many assumptions for me to accept any of this, as the basis for credible theories.

[Guest CaptainMorgan]

I tend to discount a poor camo job being the sole reason for trailcam's lack of success.

DING DING DING SURVEY SAYS . . .

Agreed, which is why I hid mine so well last week, I honestly couldn't find it for a while. I knew it was close, I knew it was at the base of a tree, and basically what I was looking for as I'm the one who covered it up, but I was having a tough time finding it again.

The game cam is black and I havent repainted it yet, but beneath a pile if sticks and bark and leafs and pine straw it was pretty well covered.

My other cameras are in Pelco housings and I painted them camo with spray paint, and bought some camo material to go on top. I add the natural moss and vegetation, bark from the stump or tree where I place it and you have to be looking right at the lens to see it.

All of my cables and outdoor stuff smells like dirt to me, because I covered it in dirt . . and it's dirty.

.

Edited July 14, 2011 by CaptainMorgan

[Guest]

There are too many assumptions for me to accept any of this, as the basis for credible theories.

I guess we won't be collaborating on research then. And there were such high hopes for us.

Seriously, your assessment is fair. I just thought it was interesting.

Edited July 13, 2011 by rwridley

[Guest]

Animals that can see in the dark do not see the same way we do at all. There are several morphological adaptations that make biological night vision possible:

1) The animal has immensely more rods than cones in the retina. Cones are made to detect color, enhance central vision (right in front of the animal) and see in bright light, and the lack of them reduces or takes away the ability of the animal to see in color or see certain colors (usually red). However, rods are made for increasing the ability to see in dim light conditions and greater peripheral vision. In fact, rods are 500 times more light-sensitive than cones. People who hunt at night, especially predator hunters, have known for decades that nocturnal animals cannot easily see red lights, and routinely use them to hunt even very wily and shy animals with. Don't get over zealous, though. Putting a red lens on a 1,000,000 candle power Q-beam is not a good idea, because even though the animals may not be able to detect the red, they can certainly detect the drastic brightness.

2) The animal usually has proportionately large eyes and an iris that is very large, so large in fact that it extends all the way to the eyelids, making the white of the eye not normally visible. In low light conditions, the animal's pupil can enlarge nearly to the size of the iris, allowing in tremendous amounts of available light.

3) Rhodopsin is the chemical that allows night vision, and it is present in the rods. It is less sensitive to red light, further verifying the tolerance of nocturnal animals to red lights and infrared illuminators.

4) The animal has a tissue layer called the tapetum lucidum in the back of the eye that reflects light back through the retina, increasing the amount of light available for it to capture. This tissue is what causes the "eye shine" in nocturnal animals when you shine a light at them.

As I have outlined above, nocturnal animals, due to the structure of the eye, do not see in color or in the red spectrum, including the infrared spectrum. Much study has been done on the subject, mostly in ungulates (deer, elk, etc.), and I have read in bears and wolves, and the studies have shown that these animals see primarily in the ultraviolet spectrum. One of the downsides of this for us is that you don't want to launder your clothes with Tide before you head out on an expedition (commercial laundry detergent companies add UV brighteners to their products to "make the whites whiter", with the results making us look like a neon sign walking through the woods at night to a BF)!

The are no known animals that can "see" in the infrared spectrum, because it cannot be seen, but there are a few that can detect it. Pit vipers are one example. Studies have found that during the day they hunt with their eyes, but at night they use their heat-sensitive pits to detect the body heat of their prey to hunt. Mosquitoes are another example, thought it is thought that they also use pheromones to detect potential prey.

Obviously, we have developed technology to convert the heat signatures of infrared into visual images so that we can understand and process them in the same manner that we do with the spectrums that we can see, so we should and do take advantage of that.

As far as trail cams go, there are plenty of them that use IR instead of flash that will not alarm nocturnal animals. I have 6 of them, and have used them extensively for deer without alarming them. The greatest potential alarm in relation to the trail cams that most people never consider is human scent contamination from where they store the unit, handling it when setting it up, taking it down, removing SD cards, etc., and contaminating the camera trap site with human scent. Every known mammal in North America has a keen sense of smell and uses it to survive in the wild to one degree or another. I have not met one BF enthusiast yet who even gave a second thought to the notion. Next time you have some kind of encounter, note the wind direction, and see if whatever comes in works its way downwind of you before coming very close.