Jump to content

Bigfoot and Infrared


Odin603
 Share

Recommended Posts

Then let's get out there and cast as many footprints as we can before they're gone. And if anyone thinks I'm being serious then they don't know me. A lot of you probably wish you didn't anyway. I have been a thorn in this Forums side for  long time...and for good reason. Don't bother replying. It isn't worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2021 at 4:13 PM, NorthWind said:

It seems many people are set that these creatures are apes of some kind. I am not necessarily of that belief, and am open to the idea that they may be more human than we realize.  Until more evidence comes in, who knows?

 

What about last Saturday? That is not an ape's foot even though it may have been made by a slightly more advanced ape brain? Ape meaning the more traditional concept of ape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that BF populations are declining, growing, or staying flat.

 

There is just no good evidence or data for anything on BF population trends.

 

Number of reports coming into BFRO (or any other organization) is not evidence of population density trends because:

  • BFRO does not have a monopoly on reporting platforms.
  • People might not be reporting via websites (as they used to in the past) because of the advent of alternative social media outlets (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.).
  • People might not be reporting at all because of socials trends that lead to mistrust of big research organizations.
  • BF encounter reports depends on two variables (human presence and BF presence) and is not a clear indicator of BF population density.  You can have an area with high density of BFs and with few human travelers and get the same number of reports than an area with low BF density but with lots of human visitors.  The reported numbers can be normalized and adjusted to get better information but they are still not a statistically sound source of data for population studies because the sources are dependent on the researchers, social media, and beliefs (that change over time).

The best objective measurement of population density trends would be a camera trap program in a fixed area over a number of years.  That is how the research is done for many big mammals.  But, as the original post suggested, we can’t apply standard wildlife monitoring practices (using game camera traps) to do BF research because it does not work for unknown reasons.

 

Others, like the Bluff Creek Camera Project, who have been monitoring a supposedly hot spot area for over 7 years with over 40 camera traps have detected nothing.  Maybe they can conclude (with a certain % of probability but with no certainty) that there is no BF present in that area anymore (assuming that BF would behave like other wildlife).  However, there is always that alternative belief (with non-zero probability) that BFs could be present but have special abilities that help them avoid the cameras.

 

With camera traps, absence of detection does not imply lack of presence. But over time, continued lack of detection should suggest that the odds of presence are diminishingly low.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

What about last Saturday? That is not an ape's foot even though it may have been made by a slightly more advanced ape brain? Ape meaning the more traditional concept of ape.

I suppose it boils down to your definition of the word "ape". I hate to sound like a former President. I have a hunch these creatures are human of some flavor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Then let's get out there and cast as many footprints as we can before they're gone. And if anyone thinks I'm being serious then they don't know me. A lot of you probably wish you didn't anyway. I have been a thorn in this Forums side for  long time...and for good reason. Don't bother replying. It isn't worth it.

 

As described so well in Blazing Saddles, "that's authentic frontier gibberish."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Then let's get out there and cast as many footprints as we can before they're gone. And if anyone thinks I'm being serious then they don't know me. A lot of you probably wish you didn't anyway. I have been a thorn in this Forums side for  long time...and for good reason. Don't bother replying. It isn't worth it.


If I remember correctly? You used to advocate that with environmental concerns time was ticking on this species.

 

What changed your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no infrared light at night.

Sasquatch have smelled me 3 days after I left an area.

Plastics outgas  formic acid.

Cameras / electronic equipment make a lot of noise.  Capacitors for flash and switching regulated power supplies are problems. Cameras will have fluctuating AC and DC magnetic fields. Do you find insect cocoons, ants or spiders at the areas of the battery poles? Simple creatures with simple wants. I attract what we call 'daddy long legs' spiders. They love my cameras.

If a camera has a filter to switch from daylight to IR flash, the switching action has a solid noise.

 

I recall the NAWAC study. They have have change coming.

 

Trail camera noise articles have been posted on this forum before. Check the reference to the link below for further reading. The article was published in 2014.

 

"Camera Traps Can Be Heard and Seen by Animals"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4212972

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, norseman said:


If I remember correctly? You used to advocate that with environmental concerns time was ticking on this species.

 

What changed your mind?

 

So much for me being cryptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an NV and saw a dog at 40 yds. I kicked on the device's IR illumination and the dog looked right at me. My trail cam has audio with it's video, a deer and it's young one in daylight walked by and on my audio replay I detected a light camera click. The young deer at that point looked right at the camera. I should post the video but I've stopped posting any media here.

 

10 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

As described so well in Blazing Saddles, "that's authentic frontier gibberish."

 

How interesting, Inc1.

 

 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

Trail camera noise articles have been posted on this forum before. Check the reference to the link below for further reading. The article was published in 2014.

 

"Camera Traps Can Be Heard and Seen by Animals"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4212972

 

 

Excellent paper and study.  Thanks for sharing Catmando!

 

I read the paper and the research study was certainly more robust and scientific than what NAWAC did, and it confirms that these cameras emit noises.

 

What is still a mystery is why (despite these cameras emitting noises, smells, infrared signals, etc.) camera trap monitoring programs do a great job in determining presence of cougars, grizzly bears, wolves, and many other mammals but not BF.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to sound like a broken record but I always come back to BF’s willingness to enter a campsite which have human devices in them.  While we do not have definitive proof on BF anatomy but I do t think it’s a stretch to guess that BF hearing and smell should be “similar” to our own if their ears and noses are constructed like ours.   They could be superior but to the point of super hearing and smell?? IDK.

 

What about trail cameras set up near loud running water?   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly does not.  By anecdotal evidence we are dealing with a super-specious or mass delusions across the N.American continent!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Twist said:

It certainly does not.  By anecdotal evidence we are dealing with a super-specious or mass delusions across the N.American continent!   

Along with a mass hoaxing of prints and video/audio evidence…a good percentage of which is probably never even found due to remote locations, but the hoaxers continue on.  
 

The thing about people going out and hoaxing prints or other evidence…that’s a sign of a pretty immature mind.  What else are immature minds attracted to?  Social media.  Where are the TikTok videos and Instagram posts of people hiking miles into unforgiving territory to make a few prints that may never even be discovered?  
 

I know that hoaxing occurs, but it can only explain a fraction of what has been discovered.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not disagree, nor do I believe hoaxing or mass delusions is the answer for Bigfoot.   Until BF is on a slab and properly vetted it has to remain an option IMO.   I’ve had what would be a BF experience but not direct sighting so I have to leave the option on the table for now.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...