DJI FLIR search and rescue drone

[BC witness]

.and then what? And so on and so on.

 

After spotting a possible target from the air, going to that spot to search for tracks, DNA, a body, or whatever else floats your boat. It's a step in the process; a tool.

[Explorer]

36 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I can't help myself as being one who always ends up asking myself and others questions. My first one is always: And then what? And then follow that with...and then what? And so on and so on.

 

If you follow Matt Moneymaker's posts in the BFRO Facebook page for the past 2 years, he has been pushing aggressively on the use of drones for BF research and been sharing information on new units and techniques available.

 

I was wondering why he was so enthused about drones since they have not yielded much fruitful information to date. 

 

Nonetheless, I think he truly believes that drones are a game changer in BF research.

 

But 5 days ago (Feb. 2, 2023), in the BFRO Facebook page he disclosed that he wanted to start a new TV show to replace Finding Bigfoot that will be called Drone Squatchers.  The new show would be all about using drones to find BF, and then a team on the ground to pursue the BF.

 

The Facebook page link is:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/62529530168/user/509704915

 

He also provided a link with a demo video of what the show would look like, using drone video from an Ohio BFRO expedition last year.

https://dronesquatchers.com/?fbclid=IwAR1ymHip6hL6h6vXo6cmMGRMGscu9ZXnmq1uyRAiNMp0mt5Gu_5wZyX4UOA

 

I was taken aback by MM desire and effort to start a new TV show, instead of actually spending his energy and time using the drones and techniques in the field.

Granted, he has been doing some field research with drones (and Robert Evans, the drone expert who was recently interviewed by Cliff Barackman, has been helping him) in Ohio, CA and probably other states.

Nonetheless, what is MM true objective?  To make money on another TV show or to detect and video record BF with a drone?  He probably answers that he wants to do both. 

But doing non commercial and private field work using drones is very different than doing a TV show in the field.  I am skeptical on the main objectives of the TV show, but it is a free country and people are free to pursue their hobbies as they see fit.

 

MM plan is that if they see a BF with a drone, then they will send a BFRO team that is already on the ground to look for it (or for whatever evidence it left on the ground).

This team will be directed by GPS coordinates (provided by the drone).

 

I am aware of a team in WA who got to see a juvenile BF with the drone close to camp (but drone user was a novice and forgot to video record) and other field team members were able to see the BF on the ground running away (daytime). 

Thus, the technique could work.

 

However, going back to Hiflier's original question, then what?

You might be able to get a drone video of BF and confirm its presence with other eyewitnesses but the evidence bar will not move at all for science.

 

If the original objective for a researcher is to see a BF close to camp, then the better option is still to stay in camp and let them get close to you and not to pursue them with drones.

If you have a thermal imager at camp, then you might get lucky if you could capture them in video. 

[SWWASAS]

MM plan to locate BF with a drone then follow it with humans on the ground is nuts.       I figure a moving BF is capable of moving at least twice as fast as a human over the same terraine.     The more difficult the terraine the bigger the difference in potential rates of travel between human and BF.    Of course Moneymaker figures all he has to do is a few calls and they come running to him.  

 

To repeat my experience with my own airplane,   I have put a lot of hours into looking for BF from the air.   Flying low gives you a closer look but you are so busy avoiding hitting the ground you do not have a lot of time to look.     The one time I did see something,   I was probably about 200 feet away,   saw a upright brown figure move behind some trees to hide,;   I immediately turned to circle, and never saw it again.     I cannot even be sure it was not a human in camo.    Some game poacher would likely hide too.   Drone operators are going to have the same issues.  

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, Explorer said:

MM plan is that if they see a BF with a drone, then they will send a BFRO team that is already on the ground to look for it (or for whatever evidence it left on the ground).

This team will be directed by GPS coordinates (provided by the drone).

 

Okay, great! Then I assume MM will have secured the blessings of F&W, FS, private landowners,  animal rights activists, animal conservation and study groups, in whatever area the drones go into so that that the laws that cover the harassment of animals- and one can assume rare animals would draw heftier penalties?- doesn't affect the BFRO. Don't make me laugh. Where MM gets off with this idea is beyond me. Plus, it would a fully commercial exercise.

 

3 hours ago, Explorer said:

You might be able to get a drone video of BF and confirm its presence with other eyewitnesses but the evidence bar will not move at all for science.

 

Totally agree with this. There's enough, photo, audio, footprint, eyewitness reports from credible sources evidence of the creature as it is, and m/s science hasn't budged. So I find MM's new plan to be ridiculous TV fodder for the masses. So, yeah, right, he's going to present this method publicly to try and sound like he's the Bigfoot cutting edge dude who woke up one day with this epiphany? Researchers have been using drones for years because I saw thermal drone footage eight years ago.

 

I know I'm being very critical of this but the last thing the wild areas need is more drones in the air overhead. It comes down to ethics, or the lack of them. And I don't want to go into this too much but what makes anyone thing that the government and it state and federal agencies don't already HAVE thermal footage. So the whole thing sounds really stupid, self serving, and highly mercenary. Just my two rocks worth of opinion here.

 

[Catmandoo]

5 hours ago, Explorer said:

MM plan is that if they see a BF with a drone, then they will send a BFRO team that is already on the ground to look for it (or for whatever evidence it left on the ground).

This team will be directed by GPS coordinates (provided by the drone)

The 'Falcon Project' revisited. They are born every minute. Total flight time is generally about 30 minutes. Flight time decreases with heavier payloads. What parts of a 24 hour day would one pursue a maximum 30 minute window of flight time above the forest canopy?

[Catmandoo]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

I know I'm being very critical of this but the last thing the wild areas need is more drones in the air overhead. It comes down to ethics, or the lack of them. And I don't want to go into this too much but what makes anyone thing that the government and it state and federal agencies don't already HAVE thermal footage. So the whole thing sounds really stupid, self serving, and highly mercenary. Just my two rocks worth of opinion here.

 

You are not being very critical.  Creating overhead views with 15 second scene lengths is just display activity for social media and television plays.

For some time in Seattle, it is illegal to fly  a drone at a park or school playground / parking lot due to stupid drone pilots. The classic event was crashing a drone into the Space Needle during 4th of July fireworks preparations about 6 years ago. The FAA has been adding requirements for drone pilots for awhile. The last time that I checked, anti-collision strobe lights were required to have visibility for a least 3 statute miles. No one is sneaking around  with an 'unlit' drone. 

 

David Letterman has been away from CBS for many years. He had a segment on his show called "Stupid Human Tricks". ?????

 

I keep seeing the term "game changer". I have not seen a game changer.  We continue to drive animals further and further away from us .The score is still Sasquatch one, humans minus 1 million. The game is back to square one: boots and hooves on the ground.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Catmandoo
text

[hiflier]

But this is more about Moneymaker the man. It's about how someone uses sensationalism to pay for even more sensationalism. Because if he never had heard of Bigfoot and was an UFO guy instead?  His pattern and boiler plate methodology would be the same. And that same pattern is being used by many, both in the Bigfoot as well as the UFO camp. Sensationalism, ESPECIALLY the kind that never resolves into a definitive answer, is good business as long as it can be made perpetual.

 

I think MM learned this by seeing MUFON's annual symposiums grow. MUFON started out in 1962 or 63 with its first symposium. And not one of them, right up to the beginning of MM's creation of the BFRO in the mid 90's, ever had an answer to UFO's, never mind Aliens. The perfect hanging carrot to dangle before the unsuspecting, believing, public. The Bigfoot biz is no different. FYI, MUFON STILL doesn't have an answer to UFO's or Aliens after 60 years. But there ARE conferences, speakers, book authors by the thousands, and so many conference vendors pulling from the UFO cash cow. And UFO's revenue game (world wide!) is far greater than Bigfoot's revenue game.

[hiflier]

20 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

 

I keep seeing the term "game changer". I have not seen a game changer. The score is still Sasquatch one, humans minus 1 million. The game is back to square one: boots and hooves on the ground....

 

 

Things should have been off of square one decades ago with at least two game changers under our belts. One would be discovery and two, would be study and knowledge........uh......wait a sec.....that's three.....okay then.....three game changers

 

Somethings off with these two people: The BFRO's Matt Moneymaker, and MUFON's Jan Harzan. And what is off with one is identical to what's off with the other. Same playbook, And I'll wager that government gets to see firsthand whatever comes into both databases. Which makes sense since, IF BIGFOOT AND ALIENS EXIST, then both phenomenon would be obvious National Security issues. And we are not privy to the truth concerning the existence or non-existence of such issues? One would have to say, we are not.

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

All of the threads and discussions of the last 20 years or so always seem to end up at this same pointed question. How does anyone Solve For Bigfoot?

 

[wiiawiwb]

9 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

I keep seeing the term "game changer". I have not seen a game changer.  We continue to drive animals further and further away from us .The score is still Sasquatch one, humans minus 1 million. The game is back to square one: boots and hooves on the ground.

 

The closest I've seen to a game changer is a thermal imager.  You can silently see, and record, in the total darkness of night.  You don't give away your location by turning on a flashlight to see and maybe in total darkness you can trick a sasquatch into thinking it is safe to come closer.  A fringe benefit is its ability to act as camp security to identify other animals, or humans, that may be rummaging around nearby thus allowing an escape, if need be.