Anyone have any recent photos of a Bigfoot they took ?

[NorCalWitness]

45 minutes ago, norseman said:

Respect to you as well!

 

Their rent is extremely expensive, because starving Africans want to slash and burn their remaining habitat and turn it into a avocado farm. 
 

Humans are great at making the environment work for ourselves at the expense of other species. The trick is raising awareness that we may want to keep a few of those species around.

 

I mean Diane Fossey was killed by Gorilla poachers. So I cant speak for her whole organization but I do think it has stayed the axe. Rich people through eco tourism allows the Gorillas to exist and the region to get an influx of cash. If the donations simply keep tourists coming? They are doing their job.

 

Humans are great apes. Bigfoot will be a great ape. Obviously they are bipedal so I would put them closer to a human than say a Chimp. But regardless? Until we have a body on a slab? We wont know just how closely related we are to it. This species escapes classification. And so therefore they have no Diane Fossey. Maybe the species is doing fine. But maybe it is not.

 

Ive never seen one. Ive seen a convincing set of snow tracks in 1980. Thats not a-lot to go on. And that was a long time ago. 
 

They will never be Mountain Gorillas. Your never going to track them through the forest with Aunt Betsy in tow. But we cannot find a bone or tooth or a corpse any where? I mean I accept forest Ninjas to a point but it gets outta hand. They dont own crematoriums!🤣

 

So then it becomes a conspiracy theory and why.

One issue we run into over and over again as a community is getting taken seriously by real intellectual institutions. The danger for a professor/researcher at a prestigious university picking up the subject is that they would lose their tenure position in many cases. Tenure at these schools is 500K+ a year. Is it worth it? The crypto currency concept of DAOs and Anon founders would be pretty interesting if appropriately applied to bigfoot. If top level brains could research this anonymously, while still having their work peer reviewed and published, it could open a lot of doors. Its probably the cheapest solution to at scale research. 

[norseman]

59 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said:

One issue we run into over and over again as a community is getting taken seriously by real intellectual institutions. The danger for a professor/researcher at a prestigious university picking up the subject is that they would lose their tenure position in many cases. Tenure at these schools is 500K+ a year. Is it worth it? The crypto currency concept of DAOs and Anon founders would be pretty interesting if appropriately applied to bigfoot. If top level brains could research this anonymously, while still having their work peer reviewed and published, it could open a lot of doors. It’s probably the cheapest solution to at scale research. 

I think it could go beyond that. Universities life blood is government funding. It would just take one phone call from a alphabet group to make anything they don’t like stop.

 

Early on I never supported conspiracy theories much. But after watching swamp gas turn into tic tacs of a Super Hornet thermal? How long they were willing to discredit and drag decent people’s reputations through the mud simply because they witnessed something? Reading the 411 books and just that push back? Anything is possible.

 

Right now I am of the opinion that they don’t want to say “Um so we have cannibalistic cave men running amok in our national forests and despite our best efforts they elude us so…….. enjoy your stay in Yosemite! Good luck!”

 

Just like they didn’t want to say “Um we have space craft in our airspace that we cannot intercept and they turn our ICBM’s on and off at whim…. enjoy your flight to Disneyland! Fly safe…..maybe”.

 

Same/same

 

I could be 100% wrong of course.

[guyzonthropus]

Hiflier..continue it how when the tooth is gone, and there aren't any from this continent for comparison?

[Huntster]

Yesterday I went on a 425 mile round trip to the Kenai Peninsula to set a marker stake on my favorite fish camp site. My Ford Expedition has a dash cam, installed for legal reasons, but I also loved the idea of a camera running at all times as I drive so I can capture wildlife. Who knows? I might even capture a shot of a sasquatch.

 

As I passed through the community of Cooper Landing at @ 7am and 35 mph, out of my peripheral vision I saw a nice size grizzly bear walking out of a small business driveway towards the road. His fur looked really scruffy, like he just got out of bed. Looked to be @ 400 lbs or so. The place he was coming from was riverfront to the Kenai River, and the properties along this section of road were mostly commercial float guiding small businesses. I slowed down to watch the bear in my rear view and side view mirrors slowly lumber out onto the road and turn to follow my direction of travel. I realized that this event was not captured on the dash cam despite it running throughout the encounter. I estimate that at our closest, we were only @ 60' from each other.

 

There are an estimated 35,000 brown bears in Alaska, fully 3/4 of the total number of the total on the North American continent. I see one or two every year. I've had them cross the road in front of me over the past couple of years (while I was driving my truck, which doesn't have a dash cam yet). I have zero pics.

 

I'd estimate fewer than 500 sasquatches in this state.

 

I probably won't be sharing any sasquatch pics anytime soon............

[Wolfjewel]

Thanks for telling us the odds of seeing a grizzly and seeing a Sasquatch. You’ve put it so clearly! People need to understand the odds of sightings of any animal in AK. Land size number of acres, number of humans, population of animal. Everything’s bigger in Alaska.

[Huntster]

I had to laugh as I drove away from the scene; I can't even catch a bear on camera with the camera running non-stop!

[Grubfingers]

I try to get pictures of Bigfoot hiking with camera ready but I never see him?

[JumboJimJabrony]

On the subject of photographic evidence, I spoke with a coworker who is an amature wildlife photographer on the subject of getting really decent photos of animals (this guy has some stunning photos). We discussed his methods and what he does to prepare and/or "set himself up" for his best photos. Based on what I was told it comes down to knowing where to be, knowing the behavior of the subject in question, and having some ammount of luck on your side. 

 

Ultimately all his best shots were taken much as you hunt. It's about going out, setting up, and waiting. Even then, if the subject doesn't cooperate you may never get a good photo. He also assured me it's like fishing. Those that fish the most catch the most fish. 

 

It seems really experienced photographers with the right equipment and opportunity can catch nice impromptu photos of wildlife in their habitat, but the skill and equipment needed can't be overstated. 

 

Now take a subject (an animal) that has intelligence enough to know that keeping maximum distance from people at all times and remaining obscured as much as possible is an imperative for survival. How easy would it be for someone who is not an experienced photographer to get a good clear photo with an iPhone while also shaking and hyped up on an adrenaline dump from the fact they saw a sasquatch? Also keeping in mind this thing is leaving as fast as it can. 

 

One of my peeves is when someone might say something along the lines of "everyone has a camera in their pocket.....surely we would have photos!". I think that mindset is taken without a full grasp of how hard it is to get an image of a "dumb" animal doing a "thing" much less get a picture of something actively aware of you and actively avoiding your line-of-sight at alll costs. 

 

Just a thought I've had in the past regarding the general skepticism on lack of clear photo evidence. 

[7.62]

1 hour ago, JumboJimJabrony said:

On the subject of photographic evidence, I spoke with a coworker who is an amature wildlife photographer on the subject of getting really decent photos of animals (this guy has some stunning photos). We discussed his methods and what he does to prepare and/or "set himself up" for his best photos. Based on what I was told it comes down to knowing where to be, knowing the behavior of the subject in question, and having some ammount of luck on your side. 

 

Ultimately all his best shots were taken much as you hunt. It's about going out, setting up, and waiting. Even then, if the subject doesn't cooperate you may never get a good photo. He also assured me it's like fishing. Those that fish the most catch the most fish. 

 

It seems really experienced photographers with the right equipment and opportunity can catch nice impromptu photos of wildlife in their habitat, but the skill and equipment needed can't be overstated. 

 

Now take a subject (an animal) that has intelligence enough to know that keeping maximum distance from people at all times and remaining obscured as much as possible is an imperative for survival. How easy would it be for someone who is not an experienced photographer to get a good clear photo with an iPhone while also shaking and hyped up on an adrenaline dump from the fact they saw a sasquatch? Also keeping in mind this thing is leaving as fast as it can. 

 

One of my peeves is when someone might say something along the lines of "everyone has a camera in their pocket.....surely we would have photos!". I think that mindset is taken without a full grasp of how hard it is to get an image of a "dumb" animal doing a "thing" much less get a picture of something actively aware of you and actively avoiding your line-of-sight at alll costs. 

 

Just a thought I've had in the past regarding the general skepticism on lack of clear photo evidence. 

I still haven't really heard a good argument on why game cameras can't film them. I know some people say they smell them , maybe smell the plastic ?

 

There's all kinds of unnatural scents in the woods from people camping and hiking  hunting .You have plastic shotgun hulls from people firing shotguns hunting . Do they never enter that area because they smell plastic ?  It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when groups of researchers can leave dozens if not hundreds  of  game cams and they can avoid all of them . 

Edited May 11, 2023 by 7.62

[JumboJimJabrony]

22 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

I still haven't really heard a good argument on why game cameras can't film them. I know some people say they smell them , maybe smell the plastic ?

 

There's all kinds of unnatural scents in the woods from people camping and hiking  hunting .You have plastic shotgun hulls from people firing shotguns hunting . Do they never enter that area because they smell plastic ?  It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when groups of researchers can leave dozens if not hundreds  of  game cams and they can avoid all of them . 

Yeah, that's a whole other aspect of the phenomenon that I really can't personally find a satisfactory explanation too. Atleast not anything that covers all the bases. It's super curious by itself.

 

I'm pretty new to all of this "stuff", and that was the first thing that really didn't jive for me was the aspect that it just cant seem to be caught on trail cams. After doing some deep digging on the aspect of trail cams I've come across explanations ranging from the more mundane to the outright fantastical (which I'm sure all of you guys have already heard them all at one point or another). None I've heard have really wrapped up well for me personally, although I'm not that knowledgeable. What might not satisfy me for an explanation might be perfectly sufficient to an expert. I can't say.

 

Aside from photography, if these things exist in the wild and they interact with the environment in anyway there has to be some signature that exists as a result that uniquely identifies them from other animals that could be caught in real time with the correct instrumentation. 

 

Surely, It would be reasonable to think if you had some hypothetical "magic camera" that was completely physically undetectable you could get an image given one was in front of it. They have to some way of understanding the significance of the object (the camera), the location of the object, and what must be done to avoid the function of that object (i.e. a photograph). 

 

The trail camera aspect is a wild rabbit hole on its own. It's pretty fascinating. 

[Catmandoo]

On 5/10/2023 at 8:35 PM, 7.62 said:

I still haven't really heard a good argument on why game cameras can't film them. I know some people say they smell them , maybe smell the plastic ?

 7.62, you asked. This has been covered on this forum several times.

Google the below title to visit a journal citation. It is good reading despite the age since the cameras that were tested are no longer in production.

 

Camera Traps Can Be Heard and Seen by Animals

 

• smell
• color
• noise
• magnetic fields
• camouflage   

Smell. The plastic housings can absorb odors from storage / home. The mounting straps / security cables can have an odor. Python cables have a plastic covering. Plastics are made with flexibilizers   or plasticizers. Plasticizers migrate out / off gas over time. Formic acid is a favorite of insects and bears.

Noryl plastic and polypropylene do not absorb odors or moisture.

 

Color of trail cameras is bad. We learned in WWII that color blind persons could detect enemy camouflage. Green is the worst because our man made green dyes can not match 'biological greens', especially near sunrise and sunset. 

 

Noise. Ultrasonic, sonic and infrasonic. Humans make ultrasonic noise when we breath and move. Wool and cotton clothes are quieter than synthetics when we walk. Trail cameras are emit obnoxious amounts of ultrasonic noise. Charging up capacitors  for flash is loud. Bear boxes / security enclosures are reflector-projectors of ultrasonic noise. Plotwatchers emit a repetitious sequence of ultrasonic noise. Ungulates look at Plotwatchers when their image is captured. Shielding for ultrasonics can have a cost higher than the camera. However, the first Reconyx series called the 'Silent Image' was mounted in a 'Sea Horse' brand polypropylene case. 120 size I believe. That PP, about 1/4" thick did an amazing job of attenuating the ultrasonic noise.

Sonic noise comes from the filter switching fixture when the camera shifts from daylight to infrared.  As far as infrasonic noise is concerned, we are screwed. You can not attenuate infrasonics. ELF, X ELF is how Navy's communicate with their subs---- through the earth.

Magnetic fields. Trail cams have switching, regulated power supplies. They have fluctuating AC and DC magnetic fields. The area of the batteries is enjoyed by ants and spiders.

 

The color and texture of plastic housings can be dealt with. ASAT fabrics, Cambush and something we don't see much of in the US, Camohide from South Africa. The previously mentioned camo items do not reflect UV.  ASAT 3D leafy fabric changes color and texture.  Cambush does the same.

Camohide was not developed for 'wild' animals. It was developed to hide cameras from human animals, poachers. It is 3 dimensional, has good texture and color options. Worth a look just to see what is out there. Paint your own with the DIY option. I bought the 'pine' bark. It does have a 'synthetic' smell even after being outside for a month.  Less than $30 and the shipping is high. DHL out of South Africa is the fastest. 

The philosophy of the Camohide people is that bark pattern is second to color.

 

Cameras are not easy to deal with. I am reminded of a forum member who stays anonymous. He placed several trail cameras on trees. When he returned to the location, the trees had been pushed over to the ground, camera side to terrain.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Catmandoo
text

[NathanFooter]

On 4/6/2023 at 12:54 PM, NorCalWitness said:

Do you think scientific acceptance would be good or bad for this animal? They seem to be doing just fine now, and are intentionally the most elusive animal in the world. 

 

    Not a single shred of information indicates they are doing well as a species.

[wiiawiwb]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:57 PM, JumboJimJabrony said:

One of my peeves is when someone might say something along the lines of "everyone has a camera in their pocket.....surely we would have photos!". I think that mindset is taken without a full grasp of how hard it is to get an image of a "dumb" animal doing a "thing" much less get a picture of something actively aware of you and actively avoiding your line-of-sight at alll costs. 

 

Everyone one today does have a cellphone camera but only a handful of people are photographers or know how to use it in a woodland setting. Here is a picture I've posted before. It is of a deer I saw while at the summit of a mountain. I took about a dozen pictures using every trick I knew to get a clear picture of it's head. No luck.

 

Two decades ago, if I had my 35mm "real" camera (Minolta) with me, I would have undoubtedly been able to focus on the deer's head in the snap of a finger and gotten a clear picture. Not with cellphone cameras of today. In my opinion, they're made for parties and pictures at home--not wildlife with a half-dozen layers of tree branches between you and it.

[Doug]

I tried to take pics and video of wild turkeys that came into my yard. Two toms were kind of rare in that they had no spurs. Try as I might the only pics that came out slightly blurry was the ones I took when they were under 10 feet away and even then, the legs were blurry. 

[Catmandoo]

On 6/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, wiiawiwb said:

Two decades ago, if I had my 35mm "real" camera (Minolta) with me, I would have undoubtedly been able to focus on the deer's head in the snap of a finger and gotten a clear picture. Not with cellphone cameras of today. In my opinion, they're made for parties and pictures at home--not wildlife with a half-dozen layers of tree branches between you and it.

 

Yep.  Back in the day, 35mm with the lens set at hyperfocal distance and the lens stopped down 2 f stops from wide open, you had a chance. When the mirror flipped down, the animal was looking a you ( shutter noise ) and then Bambi moved on. Under a dark canopy, an ASA 400 film, including black & white might work. Depends on how dark the setting is.

The auto focus / tracking focus on phone cameras gets confused. My phone has 3 selections for focus: center, multi-point and manual. I don't use the phone camera very much.

Phone camera auto focus will search near field and far field and may not have a setting before the anxious human presses the shutter button. The image of the deer is a good example of a searching auto focus and a 'normal' scene of vegetation.

The work-around is a fixed focus, point and shoot camera. No lag time of 'searching'.  Aim and shoot. ( remember to walk around with the lens cap off ).