Guest tracker Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 And this was "on topic:?" clarifying and redirecting, oops sorry that an SC's job.
VAfooter Posted July 24, 2011 Admin Posted July 24, 2011 Sorry VAfooter! I had my Virginians confused! Not a problem!
Guest DaveBeaty Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 To Tracker: From observations of sasquatch observing humans, it appears to me that sasquatch don't know we CAN'T see in the dark. Using night vision (light amplification) equipment, researchers and other curious folk still couldn't see the sasquatches even though the humans were pretty sure something was out there in the woods. Once thermal imagers were used, it was discovered that even when it was pitch black, sasquatch were low-crawling and hiding behind cover and concealment in order to observe humans. This was overkill behavior if they knew how bad a human's night vision really is. It seems to me that sasquatch assume humans can see just as well at night as they can. That makes it all the harder to find them even with multi-thousand dollar equipment. Sources: Don Young footage, MABRC expedition with , , (still doesn't prove it is not another Joe Burgess, a bandit who lived for years in the mountains of New Mexico
gigantor Posted July 24, 2011 Admin Posted July 24, 2011 Sources: Don Young footage, MABRC expedition with , Funny how the FLIR goes dark as night during the "money shot". It was crystal clear a few seconds before. , Looks like a rodent to me, the tail of a beaver or opossum. a hoax maybe, proportions don't look right.
Guest tracker Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) To Tracker: From observations of sasquatch observing humans, it appears to me that sasquatch don't know we CAN'T see in the dark. Using night vision (light amplification) equipment, researchers and other curious folk still couldn't see the sasquatches even though the humans were pretty sure something was out there in the woods. Once thermal imagers were used, it was discovered that even when it was pitch black, sasquatch were low-crawling and hiding behind cover and concealment in order to observe humans. This was overkill behavior if they knew how bad a human's night vision really is. It seems to me that sasquatch assume humans can see just as well at night as they can. That makes it all the harder to find them even with multi-thousand dollar equipment. Sources: Don Young footage, MABRC expedition with , , (still doesn't prove it is not another Joe Burgess, a bandit who lived for years in the mountains of New Mexico Yea that could be for some that don't run into us very often. The ones that visit campgrounds and commando crawl in close seem to know enough about us. Not all of them just the more over curious aggressive ones to be more specific than my title description. source: "Dancing with Sasquatches" by tracker has a ring to it eh? Edited July 24, 2011 by tracker
VAfooter Posted July 24, 2011 Admin Posted July 24, 2011 It seems to me that sasquatch assume humans can see just as well at night as they can. That sounds reasonable to me.
Guest parnassus Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Bigfoots to do list found behind a dumpster in Mio, MI 1. Devise ways to avoid quiet electric vehicles 2. Obtain samples of new trailcams for analysis 3. Obtain human clothing so as to not look like a sasquatch on thermal imaging 4. Order solar battery charger for portable radios 5. Steal a couple more human women; party like it's 2.6 million BC. 6. Hire consultants on "fire" and "shelter" to see if we can keep these human women alive a little longer. 7. Lodge more Ketchum complaints with Better Business Bureau 8. Order season 1 of Two and a Half Bobos 9. Design new hollow-log bong 10. Cut down on deer and have cholesterol re checked. 11. Send props to Hairick re his 3000th wood knock.
Guest parnassus Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Bigfoots to do list found behind a dumpster in Mio, MI 1. Devise ways to avoid quiet electric vehicles 2. Obtain samples of new trailcams for analysis 3. Obtain human clothing so as to not look like a sasquatch on thermal imaging 4. Order solar battery charger for portable radios 5. Steal a couple more human women; party like it's 2.6 million BC. 6. Hire consultants on "fire" and "shelter" to see if we can keep these human women alive a little longer. 7. Lodge more Ketchum complaints with Better Business Bureau 8. Order season 1 of Two and a Half Bobos 9. Design new hollow-log bong 10. Cut down on deer and have cholesterol re checked. 11. Send props to Hairick re his 3000th wood knock.
Guest Strick Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I have to admit that this is not as strange as "Does BF's Enjoy the Fireworks?" or "Any Revenge From The Sierra Kills?" but still this seems to be giving the unknown way to much credit. We may not be far from having a thread named "Which Star Wars episode do you think BF's would like the best?" Me personally I like the Empire Strikes Back but I see BF liking Revenge of the Sith cause of all the Wookie characters. What do you think? Surely, you're not forgetting the classic: "Does Bigfoot keep pets" thread from the old forum?
Guest Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) To Tracker: From observations of sasquatch observing humans, it appears to me that sasquatch don't know we CAN'T see in the dark. Using night vision (light amplification) equipment, researchers and other curious folk still couldn't see the sasquatches even though the humans were pretty sure something was out there in the woods. Once thermal imagers were used, it was discovered that even when it was pitch black, sasquatch were low-crawling and hiding behind cover and concealment in order to observe humans. This was overkill behavior if they knew how bad a human's night vision really is. It seems to me that sasquatch assume humans can see just as well at night as they can. That makes it all the harder to find them even with multi-thousand dollar equipment. Sources: Don Young footage, MABRC expedition with , , (still doesn't prove it is not another Joe Burgess, a bandit who lived for years in the mountains of New Mexico But how do these people know that this witnessed behavior isn't Sas's immediate reaction to recognizing that the humans are acting more alert to their position? As in looking in the direction of the Sas. I believe that's part of the point Tracker is trying to make in their process of realization that some of us have the means to see them. That there will be an evolving change in their behavior too. Parn, some good stuff comes out of you. Edited July 24, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist
Guest Darrell Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) PP (Polypodium), Darrell, considering the 27X markup of toilet seats and claw hammers, I think that a number of BF researchers could afford military-grade thermal imagers. And yet they always use low grade thermals and NV resulting in blobs or fuzzy images. Just saying, there is really good man portable thermal imaging available that would enable you to acurately aquire and identify wildlife. Just say'n if BF is so inteligent they can identify we are using night vision and thermal imaging and rapidly develop a learned behaivior to counter it why cant they observe us using fire and learn to use it? Edited July 25, 2011 by Darrell
Guest tracker Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 But how do these people know that this witnessed behavior isn't Sas's immediate reaction to recognizing that the humans are acting more alert to their position? As in looking in the direction of the Sas. I believe that's part of the point Tracker is trying to make in their process of realization that some of us have the means to see them. That there will be an evolving change in their behavior too. Parn, some good stuff comes out of you. That's right PT, Eventually they will stop coming in for a closer look through learned and taught behavior. So we better get it right with one of these projects(Erickson, Olympic) before they adapt. JMO
Guest Tsalagi Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 I have plenty of thermal and IR experience (military not BF related) and we would get animal signatures all the time. If you are not picking up Bigfoot, then it is not around. The more widespread the "sightings" the less likely it exists, I find it disheartening to find reports from all over the country. When it was confined to a narrow Northwest corridor, we could attribute a lack of evidence on it's elusiveness, but with widespread sightings we are watering down the legend. Why do you think Bigfoot should only be in the PNW? Indians and pioneers alike have reported BF's all over the country for hundreds of years. So how does spotting them all over country water down the legend? Maybe they are in all parts of the country? Maybe they are reproducing well? Perhaps many reports are people getting them confused with bear, but that doesn't mean everyone is. Don't you think they might be able to hear the high pitched noise from your thermal cameras and other high tech equipment? Would that not scare them away and be a very good explanation for why the researchers cannot find one?
JDL Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 They watch us and react to our actions. There was a show on the Outdoor Life Network (I think) with Autumn Williams (I'm pretty sure). In one episode on the Olympic Peninsula they had a thermal imager set up to view across a meadow into the far woodline. There were several deer in the meadow that were clearly visible. At one point, a large upright signature appeared in the far woodline (much larger than the deer). The guys manning the thermal exclaimed and zeroed in on the signature. As soon as they did so, the upright signature stopped moving and looked directly at them from a hundred yards away in the dark. Bottom line. If you're a hundred yards away from a squatch in the daylight, see it, exclaim, and point at it, it's going to know you've seen it and act accordingly. If you're a hundred yards away from a squatch in the night, see it through a thermal imager, exclaim, and point at it, it's going to know you've seen it and act accordingly.
Recommended Posts