Bigfoot and Infrared

[hiflier]

41 minutes ago, norseman said:

Not catching them often could be a whole host of reasons. Intelligence or being forest wise could be a factor. But I think much more importantly? It’s an extremely rare creature. More rare than a Grizzly bear in the lower 48. This is a unpopular opinion. But I’m on a roll so there it is.

 

QFT! With you on that. And hey, bud, it's good to be on a roll

[7.62]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

But so does Bigfoot! We have supposed Bigfoot on trail cameras. We have pictures and film of supposed Bigfoot as well.
 

Nothing is infallible…. 
 

Not catching them often could be a whole host of reasons. Intelligence or being forest wise could be a factor. But I think much more importantly? It’s an extremely rare creature. More rare than a Grizzly bear in the lower 48. This is a unpopular opinion. But I’m on a roll so there it is.

 

 

I've never seen a good trail cam pic where you can say yeah that's a bigfoot. Maybe they are out there but people keep them secret as a couple of members

here have said they would never share any proof to the public ?  I think you're right on them being extremely rare because it's the Only thing that makes any sense on how you can't catch them on a trail cam. If all the reports were accurate of them going into camps , sightings on the sides of roads , researchers who think they are interacting with them 

they would be getting caught on trail cams . That's just common sense .  I think most people are mistaken when they think they are interacting with them . Call it having Bigfoot on the mind. I know that's probably not a popular opinion here either .  I guess it comes down to two million acre forest and having only a handful  of them there . Chance of you being able to have the trail cam in the right place at the right time is nearly impossible . I don't believe they sense danger from them they just happen not to walk past them.

Edited July 23, 2021 by 7.62

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

I've never seen a good trail cam pic where you can say yeah that's a bigfoot. Maybe they are out there but people keep them secret as a couple of members

here have said they would never share any proof to the public ?  I think you're right on them being extremely rare because it's the Only thing that makes any sense on how you can't catch them on a trail cam. If all the reports were accurate of them going into camps , sightings on the sides of roads , researchers who think they are interacting with them 

there would be getting caught on trail cams . That's just common sense .  I think most people are mistaken when they think they are interacting with them . Call it having Bigfoot on the mind. I know that's probably not a popular opinion here either .  I guess it comes down to two million acre forest and having only a handful  of them there . Chance of you being able to have the trail cam in the right place at the right time is nearly impossible . I don't believe they sense danger from them they just happen not to walk past them.

This is definitely not a bear. Is it a hoax? Fred Eichler is a straight up hunter with lots of wildlife hunting videos. I definitely don’t think he is in on it. Brave to be walking around the woods in a fur suit during Bow bear season.

 

 

[7.62]

7 minutes ago, norseman said:

This is definitely not a bear. Is it a hoax? Fred Eichler is a straight up hunter with lots of wildlife hunting videos. I definitely don’t think he is in on it. Brave to be walking around the woods in a fur suit during Bow bear season.

 

 

I've seen that before . Is it a hoax on him? someone messing with him ? It's not clear enough but I also don't believe he's in on it if it is a hoax .

[MIB]

26 minutes ago, norseman said:

This is definitely not a bear. Is it a hoax? Fred Eichler is a straight up hunter with lots of wildlife hunting videos. I definitely don’t think he is in on it.

 

15 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

It's not clear enough but I also don't believe he's in on it if it is a hoax .

 

I agree with both of you.   Not a bear.  Not clear enough.   And if it is a hoax I don't think he's part of it.    All I can think of is I wish the camera had been 20 feet farther back so we had more of whatever it is in the frame for examination.   

 

MIB

 

[Celtic Raider]

6 hours ago, MIB said:

 

 

I agree with both of you.   Not a bear.  Not clear enough.   And if it is a hoax I don't think he's part of it.    All I can think of is I wish the camera had been 20 feet farther back so we had more of whatever it is in the frame for examination.   

 

MIB

 

Doesn't look like the typical sasquatch to me, shoulders look very square like padding in a suit with head perched on top and no sign of trap muscles which usually are very obvious in the pics I've seen and in apes like gorillas

https://www.junsanatomy.com/products/gorilla-anatomy-model-1-6th-scale-v-1

Edited July 23, 2021 by Celtic Raider

[Celtic Raider]

15 hours ago, NCBFr said:

 

The wood ape vs all-powerful wood ninja is a conundrum that I have wrestled with for a long time.  I have rationalized a few ways over the years:

1. While they may not be high IQ smart, their brain has evolved over millennia to be hyper tactical that has enabled them to basically live undisturbed. Like all of us, sometimes they are off their game and/or we run in to one on them on the left side of the bell curve.  Darwin hits them like all earth-bound creatures.
2. They are protected by the government and get help remaining hidden and covering up when there is a mistake.  if BF is real, I am almost 100% sure the government knows about them.
3. There are two distinct types.  The wood apes and the ninjas and the ninja type helps protect the wood apes.  Some have theorized BF has an alien origin.   I don't buy it but if you believe the BFs seen leaving UFO reports, these could be the ninjas looking after the wood apes.  Spit balling this one.
4. There are times when they just don't care about the world outside their realm and other times they are uber protective of their family and territory.  An analogy would be our relationship with deer.  Many times we ignore deer as they cannot hurt us.  Other times we shot them for food or run in to them with our cars.  The deer really have no idea which one is going to happen to them when they encounter us.
5. BF's have a divine background and are tied to The Watchers/Nephilim.  Not likely but interesting if you think about it.  Besides, I do not think we are  allowed to discuss this angle on the forum so will leave it alone. 

 

Probably some combination of 1,2, and maybe 4 if you ask me. 

 

The fact remains thousands of people have encountered them across the globe and over pretty much all of mankind but yet we do not have a type species in a zoo/museum.  Either they are the luckiest creatures n the world, many of us have experienced mass hallucinations regarding BF, or something special is going on with them.  I for one am a pretty well grounded engineer and do not believe I hallucinate but think what you want.

 

Good post, it's very probably more than just one singular reason and likely a few that cause this anomoly as you say. Just to add to the possible reasons and after watching the video regarding the great apes and cameras which is very enlightening;

 

The stats seem to suggest that the apes with large and societal groups get caught more on camera as they are more bold and less cautious as they have the confidence of being in a group.

All the apes seemed to notice the cameras so were aware of the changes in their environment.

The least caught were the gorillas and they seem to be more cautious to approach and obviously move about less than the smaller apes.

Older individuals seem to be less curious or less excited by the cameras.

The cameras were approached from behind more than in front. 

 

So, if sasquatch is a real live flesh and blood creature and not being caught on camera traps we might be able to speculate they are aware or them as were the great apes but similar to orangutans they might be more solitary so very cautious.

If they travelled in large groups they would likely be more bold and less afraid of new stimuli like the chimps and thus caught more.

Maybe they don't travel all that much outside of their home areas like the gorilla and then wouldn't come across them as often. 

Maybe older individuals are the ones out hunter/gathering so they would be the ones most likely to come across cameras and were less excited or curious than young animals.

The strange thing is that these factors could explain why they do not appear more on cameras but they are also kind of contradictory to some reports as well. Very interesting video though.

[Celtic Raider]

13 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

19 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

You can't have your cake and eat it.

I have cake with ice cream on it.  I have seen a new flavor called "Death by Chocolate". Looks to be a killer flavor, second to Sweatty Balls.

 

Urghhh chocolate too rich for me........ But I do love a good rhubarb crumble with ice cream on with rhubarb picked from my garden 😀 

 

Not tempted to try the 2nd flavour 😬😂

 

I've often wondered why there aren't more attempts to track with horses as their noise, smell and presence could make it easier to sneak up on a sasquatch without alerting them human presence. Very likely happened with Patty as she seemed to be caught right out in the open.

[Twist]

2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Doesn't look like the typical sasquatch to me, shoulders look very square like padding in a suit with head perched on top and no sign of trap muscles which usually are very obvious in the pics I've seen and in apes like gorillas

How do we know what the typical BF looks like?   
 

8 hours ago, MIB said:

All I can think of is I wish the camera had been 20 feet farther back so we had more of whatever it is in the frame for examination.   

That is always the case, camera is juuuust out of place.  Lends me to believe there is some Tom Foolery and skullduggery going on.

[wiiawiwb]

That looks like something skinny. A hoax I suspect.

 

Even Patty, a female, had a gargantuan set of shoulders that were heavily muscled.  The classic "V"-shaped back whose muscles rippled when she moved.

[Foxhill]

Good grief....crappy camera, another hunter or he caught himself leaving/arriving at the site....next! and yes that has definitely been around a while.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Foxhill

[Catmandoo]

8 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

I've often wondered why there aren't more attempts to track with horses as their noise, smell and presence could make it easier to sneak up on a sasquatch without alerting them human presence. Very likely happened with Patty as she seemed to be caught right out in the open.

 

One does not want to 'sneak up' on a Sasquatch. No surprises.  Most urban types can not afford a horse(s).  Forest jurisdictions have restrictions about using vehicles,  horses and pack animals. Some areas are not horse friendly.  There is a location ( a ranch ) in Washington State with unverified reports that women on horses are frequently watched by Sasquatch.

 

The horse comments bring up the Henry Weinhard beer ad from the 1980's where the seer in the saloon of the 1880's states that in a hundred years, only women and little girls will ride horses. True.

[VAfooter]

21 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I’m on a roll so there it is.

 

Better to be on a roll, than to be rolled...

 

14 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Doesn't look like the typical sasquatch to me, shoulders look very square like padding in a suit with head perched on top and no sign of trap muscles which usually are very obvious in the pics I've seen and in apes like gorillas

https://www.junsanatomy.com/products/gorilla-anatomy-model-1-6th-scale-v-1

 

The head looks very squarish to me. Sort of reminds me of the video of the creature crossing the Cass River.

[Celtic Raider]

18 hours ago, Twist said:

How do we know what the typical BF looks like?   

 

Haha, that's a good point! I would assume if BF is a real creature then the PGF would be the standard plus most reports state about the low set head compared to ourselves and the relatively muscular stature with the typical sagittal crest and heavily muscled chest, neck, traps. Though you do raise a very good point of course, we simply don't know the variance between individuals 😁

[NCBFr]

On 7/23/2021 at 6:17 AM, Celtic Raider said:

 

Good post, it's very probably more than just one singular reason and likely a few that cause this anomoly as you say. Just to add to the possible reasons and after watching the video regarding the great apes and cameras which is very enlightening;

 

The stats seem to suggest that the apes with large and societal groups get caught more on camera as they are more bold and less cautious as they have the confidence of being in a group.

All the apes seemed to notice the cameras so were aware of the changes in their environment.

The least caught were the gorillas and they seem to be more cautious to approach and obviously move about less than the smaller apes.

Older individuals seem to be less curious or less excited by the cameras.

The cameras were approached from behind more than in front. 

 

So, if sasquatch is a real live flesh and blood creature and not being caught on camera traps we might be able to speculate they are aware or them as were the great apes but similar to orangutans they might be more solitary so very cautious.

If they travelled in large groups they would likely be more bold and less afraid of new stimuli like the chimps and thus caught more.

Maybe they don't travel all that much outside of their home areas like the gorilla and then wouldn't come across them as often. 

Maybe older individuals are the ones out hunter/gathering so they would be the ones most likely to come across cameras and were less excited or curious than young animals.

The strange thing is that these factors could explain why they do not appear more on cameras but they are also kind of contradictory to some reports as well. Very interesting video though.

 

Back when I wanted to capture a BF picture and felt they were aware of trail cams I came up with a couple plans that I thought would work.  One involved setting up a reverse slope cam(s).  Basically place cams midway down a likely BF path pointed up the hill.  This way they would get zapped as soon  as they crested the hill and before they could see or detect the cam.  The second plan would be to place a cam behind a large tree pointing away from the expected BF path and then another 100 yards later place one or more cams facing towards the path of the BF.  You can do this from both directions if you are unsure which way they will pass through the spot.  This way they would be trapped in cams once they made it through the first one.  Never executed either due to  difficulty getting to the places I felt would be the best spot to place the cams.  I have found a new spot that I think would work that is much easier to reach that I believe was visited at least twice last spring.  They do not seem to venture/hunt far from their home in the summer so I may try plan B in the fall as the chokepoint is along a lake and flat as a pancake.  I would need at least 4 cams to do it because the spot is on a loop so I do not know which way they would enter the zone.  

Edited July 24, 2021 by NCBFr