Guest parnassus Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Most Primitive cultures have issues with having their pictures taken. It's pretty common and documented. The more we look into BF and compare the circumstancial reports to what's been previously documented with primitive peoples the more sense the BF phenom is to intellectually understand. Getting definative proof of this is another question entirely. Usually it's the accepted method to begin with a hypothisis and then get evidence to ''prove it''. Not start with evidence and try to form a hypothisis. Until someone picks a original premise they are either animal or human speculation is just a spinning of the wheels. BF as ''animal'' = no avoidance of camera traps BF as ''human''= avoidance of camera traps bears more investigation. how does a bigfoot know his picture is being taken? (BTW: I'd take issue with your view of the scientific method.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) how does a bigfoot know his picture is being taken? One of the problems Parn is what evidence to even review. Accept on faith for purpose of discussion I have some tangible evidence BFs know when their photo is being taken...if we include "photo being taken" to any appartatus designed to film or photograph, such as trail cams and other set ups. I tried; trail cam (covert IR- no glow), flood IR (again covert - no glow), IR sensitive to .0001lux ambient light full moons, IR sensitive ambient light no moon, Night Vision Gen3+ military grade, handheld FLIR and also handheld and remote set up handycams with varying blind cover (sometimes in my tent). I also employed many bait stations simulataneouls, some when only one camera available..and so on. In all about 25-30 trips most alone and each responding to the last set of data I "interpreted" based on learning as ones goes. I also, b/c quickly I knew getting a real measure of physicality, etc not for me alone, that some measure of smarts was all I could go for - and so used Morgan's, Goodall's, and my techniques with many other things going on- gifting spots, tracking, casting so on. I can say this.. I dumped the trail cam fast, to hard to hide, associated with hunters and I quickly got every other nocturnal animal out there..all while still getting "hits" (my interpretation - from tracks to we.ll stay focused here..) anyway...so I moved to flood covert IR fortunate mishaps result in video (in series, from the first working experiments to failed, to the no light ambient IR) that indicate to me..strongly, they can detect either the throw or light in the IR range, or detect some hum RF associated with equipment. Also, the NV lens (and recorded on film) does give a type of giveaway cast spotlight. Again signs but only bait hit not under survellance..this is over more than one night/trip (I so want to talk aobout smarts...other experiments, but it just isn't time...the only ones listening are "seekers" with questionable intent) on the NV series...so now only thing left is personal bravery -stick my hand out (we developed a mutual safe zone in a way....both parties aware and curious and agreed level we could handle) so i got hold of a FLIR 7i for a night, results great....little negative response from BF...(not mine unfortunately) but you know what? Thermal is tough to sell as evidence..and my first expereince I was too passive (next time I will approach directly for more response)....so yeah BF can tell if you are trying to take photo - here is why also my first trip I took film of running away noise from camp - day - assumed Deer...sunlight/LCD screen I panned - nada Ok and forgot it..till three bizarre (and scary then, not now) trips...and I see... a BF with very human hands, but b/c zoomed in not great resoultion, it is looking right at me and when I aim lens ddirectly at? He/she gets nervous and begins to move (unfortunately I keep panning) had the BF remaine motionless even on camera review it would not be believable to me..with priginal and there... so there you have it man..keep and open mind when you read Morgan's book.. also, he seems to have been marginalized in some wasy in the ape/human divide in BF world? not sure...but his book helpful (and regular anthro books/hunter gather knowledge, so forth..I have backround Natural Resources) okay sorry I am not going to edit - too long - so again sorry no disrespect intended... no confernce Ketchum scheduled I take it. p.s. also parn associated with what I will call generally signs such as tracks, or just one apple missing a night, moved or taken (given) small items and so on...as well as sound recordings (a hugely tough sell..it will always be anything but a BF in mimicry, and I don't have "talk" - woodknocks yes..interactive...and so on...), I have these series of videos with eyeshine...again B/W on IR sensitive mode....but multiple nights all around these experiments...(and a great deal I m not sharing, not to be coy, just it's too much to share and I won't be fielding many questions, b/c this effort here, posting in a forum...LOL I should be wading thru my stuff to make in format and analyzed in at least an article/something format? LOL for who parn? So, I am now in camp shut-up till someone's fault they are proven...then talk..except here, some will follow my advice and get somewhere, others will try and shoot...I don't have too much to say about that? most really serious researchers know, if they don't they aren't using any method to advance their knowledge..just going for $$ video? they should by now anyway. I am very conflicted about sharing info now...it seems, well just a bunch of greedy people really - to the end....not all of course, but the visible seem to be. I know, we all declare we aren't..just saying! Edited January 10, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I am sorry. BF has no idea what a camera is. The idea that a camera scares a bf more than another man made object is just pure silly. What are we going to say next. That bf's work 9 to 5 and during their off hours go out on the woods naked exposing their harry bodies. That would fit with the bf is a human theory. Maybe patty is just a hairy ugly women who could not get a date and she was just out for a hike. On a side note. I wonder why it did not take them 5 years to publish the photos of the new primate that was discovered. Isn't that the standard time frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I am sorry. BF has no idea what a camera is. The idea that a camera scares a bf more than another man made object is just pure silly. What are we going to say next. That bf's work 9 to 5 and during their off hours go out on the woods naked exposing their harry bodies. That would fit with the bf is a human theory. Maybe patty is just a hairy ugly women who could not get a date and she was just out for a hike. On a side note. I wonder why it did not take them 5 years to publish the photos of the new primate that was discovered. Isn't that the standard time frame? I am not sure if you are addressing me, but in my post I make clear I am referring to a variety of manmade survelliance objects, and I make no claim they are "afraid" of a camera, just they avoid such when directed at them. I am not sure if you are addressing me, but in my post I make clear I am referring to a variety of manmade survelliance objects, and I make no claim they are "afraid" of a camera, just they avoid such when directed at them. ROFL...Ok I have to go away for today, I will get on this forum treadmill! gracias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 If I were worried about running into a squatch and wanted to scare it away, I'd carry a really noisy pair of battery-powered hair clippers and be prepared to pull them out and turn them on. Point is, a squatch doesn't need to recognize a camera, or a rifle, for that matter. All it needs to be able to do is recognize that the object is of human origin and that it performs the function of a trap (game camera or other emplaced object of unknown function), or of a weapon (hand-held object of unknown function). The clippers in my example would probably rattle them as much as a pistol would. No need to make a distinction. If we brandish it at them, they'll assume that it is dangerous. If we set it out and leave it behind, they'll be suspicious. I suspect that they also understand the concept of bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 10, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 10, 2012 If we brandish it at them, they'll assume that it is dangerous. If we set it out and leave it behind, they'll be suspicious. I suspect that they also understand the concept of bait. This is what truly confuses me though in that they are camera shy but think nothing of picking up a handheld walkie talkie or digital recorder and returning it to a spot that makes it obvious that it has been returned by "them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 This is what truly confuses me though in that they are camera shy but think nothing of picking up a handheld walkie talkie or digital recorder and returning it to a spot that makes it obvious that it has been returned by "them". lol I lied...b/c this has puzzled me i think it is the lens...in the case of survelliance objects, if no other give away such as a blind/trail cam shape, etc... it is virtually impossible to hide a lens....BUT the FLIR? no lens..no emission of light that my video cam recorded...so in that instance, even though I had a video cam..it appeared to be pointing at my feet (it was night - so only light is LCD screen) and the fFLIR aimed at them (the FLIR very small handhel whit plastic thing) and notably the FLIR has no apparent reflective lens.. With any ambient light, a glass lens reflects to some degree. And I explained the Ir thing on remote set-ups....so yeah, lots of questions and unfinished experiments..and no money..and more importantly I realize now, no-one of import to tell... so, no that Parn if you get a big HIT! I really have to get back to wrk..srgg.. also I should add... on the apple thing..very interesting and many experiments, notably more than one trip - just one apple a night (in a bowl of 7- until just three left..and then restraint...doesn't take another unless I replenish..so limited "counting" it appears..."a lot" and "smoe?" also, on camera and sound.. I can leave behind a handyzoom audio recorder and they will act as though no problem, and I can leave behind video...and pick up sound but no visual..they stay behind the lens.. so folks, think..build a blind that fools them..fake lens wrong way, or two way mirror ..as what? mirror or something to justify that shiny in that location... gosh I wish I was out there now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 This is what truly confuses me though in that they are camera shy but think nothing of picking up a handheld walkie talkie or digital recorder and returning it to a spot that makes it obvious that it has been returned by "them". Which means that we still can't rule out that they recognize cameras as something specific. It would be interesting to set out objects that are similar to cameras and see how they react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Which means that we still can't rule out that they recognize cameras as something specific. It would be interesting to set out objects that are similar to cameras and see how they react. see now I am in problem solving mode..and I agree with above, one can't rule out so quickly - I have results that inform me to try new experiments, all the while reinforcing all the other evidence. they are smart in every way they need to be to survive and avoid us. But, future set ups will include (LOL - $$ low and well it seems invasive now) using nude pantyhose to shoot thru will soften lens reflections, but fights with low light...so has to be for ambient day remote "forgotten item" while hiking etc...or at camp I built a cute Disneyland blind..a little girly box bright colors, samll 7 hr cam fits in and made one side with 2-way mirror..and decorate as tho shiny round a part of "design" A laptop left out for them with movies and simple webcam..enough familirization perhaps the ambient light and curiosty might be enough? leave behind a keychain photo thing...and a small cheap handycam all charged up..let them play with and break.. I have one that comes on just by opening LCD screen,,, LOl but you know my BF days are over for most part... it would do more harm to them than good I think at this stage or w/o plan to provide a meaningful communication (to them or us).. so what am I doing here ? It is a most remarkable and meaningful experience, that I am still processing... lol and a few others. but FLIR is worth exploring, if only to know just exactly where and how many... and sound, I will push sound as non-invasive and very informative, but again not a "proof" goal..but behavioral understanding. i didnt wait for proof or expect to be the "prover" I wanted to know if I could know them. Edited January 10, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Which is insitutional Science's way of weaseling out of having to deal with the ramifications of Dr Meldrum's evidence (or Dr Fahrenbachs, or Dr Swindler's, or Dr Schaller's, and so on), just as I've been saying for pages now. They will not engage the evidence. So you see no problem with listing the names of four "institutional scientists" with bigfoot evidence when you're trying to make the point that institutional science will not engage bigfoot evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So you see no problem with listing the names of four "institutional scientists" with bigfoot evidence when you're trying to make the point that institutional science will not engage bigfoot evidence? nice catch! Ok I really am leaving now, but with a smile! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What was wrong with the term "mainstream scientists"? "Institutional scientists" makes me think of the phycologist from The Terminator for some weird reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 lol I lied...b/c this has puzzled me i think it is the lens...in the case of survelliance objects, if no other give away such as a blind/trail cam shape, etc... it is virtually impossible to hide a lens....BUT the FLIR? no lens..no emission of light that my video cam recorded...so in that instance, even though I had a video cam..it appeared to be pointing at my feet (it was night - so only light is LCD screen) and the fFLIR aimed at them (the FLIR very small handhel whit plastic thing) and notably the FLIR has no apparent reflective lens.. With any ambient light, a glass lens reflects to some degree. And I explained the Ir thing on remote set-ups....so yeah, lots of questions and unfinished experiments..and no money..and more importantly I realize now, no-one of import to tell... so, no that Parn if you get a big HIT! I really have to get back to wrk..srgg.. also I should add... on the apple thing..very interesting and many experiments, notably more than one trip - just one apple a night (in a bowl of 7- until just three left..and then restraint...doesn't take another unless I replenish..so limited "counting" it appears..."a lot" and "smoe?" also, on camera and sound.. I can leave behind a handyzoom audio recorder and they will act as though no problem, and I can leave behind video...and pick up sound but no visual..they stay behind the lens.. so folks, think..build a blind that fools them..fake lens wrong way, or two way mirror ..as what? mirror or something to justify that shiny in that location... gosh I wish I was out there now. using the FLIR, I wonder if there could be/is a way to enhance certian anomalies of the heat signature in different areas of the subject to distinguish differences in various animals? I never operated one,so i'm curious if they could be used in such a manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 10, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 10, 2012 ....also, on camera and sound.. I can leave behind a handyzoom audio recorder and they will act as though no problem, and I can leave behind video...and pick up sound but no visual..they stay behind the lens..so folks, think..build a blind that fools them..fake lens wrong way, or two way mirror ..as what? mirror or something to justify that shiny in that location... Well I have mixed experience with audio recorders in that they have messed with them cautiously, picked them up (when lost incidentally) and returned them (yet keeping their distance until the batteries expired...it seemed, can't prove), yet also when placed in new areas, tested them by throwing objects, ranging nearby and fiddling as if reaching out toward them with objects, and literally "run" by them bipedally ...... so it is not a universal as to how they experience and interact with the same device (or similar devices since I've used various audio recorders and various microphone setups) in the same way. I think it suggests they are sentient (along with sound file evidence of long-term auditory memory for novel sequenced stimuli presented in one-trial situations). But this is the Ketchum thread so I'll get back on track here and say I am hopeful that the process is within three months of completion and that it will stimulate the collation of in-depth studies and data collection (insofar as possible....but who knows what is out there) with a moratorium on attempts to capture and kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I have lost track, I don't know if it was in this thread or another one where I brought up this point. Why would a bigfoot not avoid a device that might flash temporarily killing his night vision? It takes us about 20 minutes to completely get our night vision back once we are exposed to light. That is a long time to stand out in the wild at night without being able to see. Now I watched one of those animal planet shows that had 5 different species of monkeys living in various levels of the canopy. They worked together to develop universal calls that all of the species understood to mean "snake". If bigfoot is a primate, why is the thought that bigfoot might know to avoid a game cam or other device so hard to fathom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts