Question for Matt Moneymaker: How come no one has gotten a photo with a trail camera?
 |
| Yo Matt! Where's the trail cam photos? |
Matt Moneymaker is the founder and president of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO).
People often wonder how come we haven't seen any trail cam pictures of Bigfoot on his website or his hit TV show Finding Bigfoot. On the BFRO's website, he gives us his answer.
Short Answer: Because trail cameras suck and people don't know how to use them correctly. And for those who do use them correctly, they have photos but refused to make them public.
Long Answer: Read below...
Matt's Answer from BFRO's website:
People have gotten photos of bigfoots with trail cameras. Here are the best ones.
There is another photo from a different state which we can't show online, but Wally Hersom has a huge to-scale blow-up of this trail cam photo in his living room. The guy who obtained that trail cam photo does not want it made public yet. It's his decision and we respect that.
The point being ... trail cameras do get shots of bigfoots sometimes, but trail cameras are not as omnipresent as some would suggest.
Why don't you use trail cameras at the hot spots you know about?
The short answer: We do use trail cameras. BFROer's use some trail cameras at some hot spots they know about. That's a fact. Here's one example of where (through benefactor Wally Hersom) we have provided cameras for a local researcher's trail camera project.
Many BFRO people use their own trail cameras. Collectively we've been experimenting with trail cameras for years, and learned the limitations of most inexpensive trail cam models that make them pretty ineffective in this context.
The odds are against you if you're using a common trail camera to obtain a photo of a bigfoot, because the low-end models don't trigger fast enough. They'll miss a lot of shots of something passing by quickly in front of it. If they flash after a bigfoot passes by, then a bigfoot will not pass by again.
You can only rely on common trail cams to get photos of species that don't care about the camera, and among those species you can only expect to get a good shot reliably if the animal can be lured to hang around in front of the camera for a while. Only the most expensive (and therefore uncommon) trail cams will reliably get shots of every warm blooded animal moving through the trigger field. And among those more expensive trail cams, only the most expensive type (and therefore most rarely deployed) is dependable enough to get absolutely everything passing by, no matter how fast it is walking by (e.g. gets bats swooping by) and no matter what the ambient temperature is. Temperature extremes affect the trigger speed in lower end trail cameras, which are the vast majority of trail cameras that are actually put to use in the field.
The vast majority of trail cameras (of all types) that have been sold in America over the years sit idle on shelves in garages, etc. ... They are not deployed in the woods. You'll ask around a long, long time before you meet someone who actually has trail cameras set up in the woods for some reason. It's not as common as you might think. Here's a good analogy: Millions of kites have been sold in America since the 1960's. How many kites to do you see flying in the sky on any given day?
The number of trail cameras actually deployed across North America by hunters, etc., on most days of the year would likely be in the four figure range. The places they are deployed are not necessarily good spots for bigfoot activity. More importantly, those mostly crappy trail cameras are never concealed well enough to avoid being noticed by a bigfoot from a distance.
Hunters strap trail cameras to tree trunks, and they strap them up at face height, and on trees next to deer trails. They are usually very conspicuous, and they are large enough boxes to be spotted from a distance by a bigfoot. Also, bigfoots usually don't walk right on deer trails. Their trails for stalking deer will parallel deer trails on the downwind side, and/or uphill from active deer trails.
For a longer treatment of the drawbacks of common trail cameras, click here.
 |
| The Jacobs Creature |
There is another photo from a different state which we can't show online, but Wally Hersom has a huge to-scale blow-up of this trail cam photo in his living room. The guy who obtained that trail cam photo does not want it made public yet. It's his decision and we respect that.
The point being ... trail cameras do get shots of bigfoots sometimes, but trail cameras are not as omnipresent as some would suggest.
 |
| Artist depiction of Hersom's living room with Bigfoot portrait By: Bigfoot Evidence Blog |
Why don't you use trail cameras at the hot spots you know about?
The short answer: We do use trail cameras. BFROer's use some trail cameras at some hot spots they know about. That's a fact. Here's one example of where (through benefactor Wally Hersom) we have provided cameras for a local researcher's trail camera project.
Many BFRO people use their own trail cameras. Collectively we've been experimenting with trail cameras for years, and learned the limitations of most inexpensive trail cam models that make them pretty ineffective in this context.
The odds are against you if you're using a common trail camera to obtain a photo of a bigfoot, because the low-end models don't trigger fast enough. They'll miss a lot of shots of something passing by quickly in front of it. If they flash after a bigfoot passes by, then a bigfoot will not pass by again.
You can only rely on common trail cams to get photos of species that don't care about the camera, and among those species you can only expect to get a good shot reliably if the animal can be lured to hang around in front of the camera for a while. Only the most expensive (and therefore uncommon) trail cams will reliably get shots of every warm blooded animal moving through the trigger field. And among those more expensive trail cams, only the most expensive type (and therefore most rarely deployed) is dependable enough to get absolutely everything passing by, no matter how fast it is walking by (e.g. gets bats swooping by) and no matter what the ambient temperature is. Temperature extremes affect the trigger speed in lower end trail cameras, which are the vast majority of trail cameras that are actually put to use in the field.
The vast majority of trail cameras (of all types) that have been sold in America over the years sit idle on shelves in garages, etc. ... They are not deployed in the woods. You'll ask around a long, long time before you meet someone who actually has trail cameras set up in the woods for some reason. It's not as common as you might think. Here's a good analogy: Millions of kites have been sold in America since the 1960's. How many kites to do you see flying in the sky on any given day?
The number of trail cameras actually deployed across North America by hunters, etc., on most days of the year would likely be in the four figure range. The places they are deployed are not necessarily good spots for bigfoot activity. More importantly, those mostly crappy trail cameras are never concealed well enough to avoid being noticed by a bigfoot from a distance.
Hunters strap trail cameras to tree trunks, and they strap them up at face height, and on trees next to deer trails. They are usually very conspicuous, and they are large enough boxes to be spotted from a distance by a bigfoot. Also, bigfoots usually don't walk right on deer trails. Their trails for stalking deer will parallel deer trails on the downwind side, and/or uphill from active deer trails.
For a longer treatment of the drawbacks of common trail cameras, click here.
Source: bfro.net
My research indicates Bigfoots can detect light in the 950nm range..no amount of hiding a trail cam will hide the emission of light in that range.
ReplyDeleteI have held this information somewhat closely for a few years, as I had done some experiments and a mistake/techno failure led to interesting results I capitalized on with a new set up and so on.
This info I did share with a few, among them the Erickson project and they agreed....that was almost three years ago...they were supposed to come out with FLIR, etc. etc many promises for me to spill my guts. Given the very competitive and less than kind (glass dowsn't cause injury? infection of the mouth...etc...not happy with that method at all...) manner (unprofessional) in which Erickson and Phlogh (sp?) have dealt with me (I assume others as well) I might as well just put it out there.
If you don't believe me keep using those "covert IR" cams...lol.....
seriously, dump the IR sources (even the NV lenses emit some light in this range...) and move to low light or FLIR. Great results with FLIR and no indication the Bigfoots "see" it as any kind of dangerous equipment as they barely ducked when in use in field (no flashlights or guns..you won't get close).
I have not posted my data/video etc....don't see the point until the species is proven....too much info for those close to me and hunting in barbaric style.....and the anthropologists not yet listening.....how did I end up here?
Three years, 30 trips....it just unfolded ...one of the problems with habituation programs is the deep responsibility it should create in the researcher... I did not use glass. The possible DNA I obtained still sitting on the plate I collected (I used velcro - the plastic part to remove cells from mouth) for Ericiskon...who I was never able to reach again....geez..Bigfooters are the strangest and biggest BSers I have ever met..and that from a lawyer!
My first evidence was a day video that showed a juveniles hands... I guess I never thought they were apes because my data came in so fast indicating anything but.... in fact for some time I thought perhaps feral humans....but there are enough differences that a subspecies is possible...
The Jacobs Creature is not a sasquatch. The sasquatch is known as bigfoot? The image of the creature bending down to sniff the ground clearly shows that this creature DOES NOT have the large human-like feet associated with bigfoot. Why anyone continues to argue that this is bigfoot is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteOf course, what is he going to say? This guy makes money on the whole bigfoot thing. In spite of how he tries to downplay this, the fact that no credible trail camera footage exists (the comment about the feet on the "Jacobs Creature" is right on)in spite of thousands of cameras being used SPECIFICALLY to capture an image of bigfoot is a big problem for bigfoot enthusiasts. Moneymaker(he should have changed his name to Bigfoot Moneymaker)has got to come up with some elaborate explanations for why trail cameras have been unsuccessful in capturing a credible bigfoot image. After all, he can't get rid of his bread and butter. Although, it really doesn't matter. No trail camera picture is going to convince anyone but bigfoot believers. The only thing that could possibly bring this whole thing to an end is if an actual bigfoot body is brought in for the world and science to see. The bigfoot enthusiasts need to forget about all of this video camera, thermal camera, trail camera, and sound recording stuff. They need to pool their money together and hire a few professional big game hunters to hunt one down and kill it.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, Moneymaker is spewing nonsense. With all the mental gymnastics these folks go through, they should be in a circus.
ReplyDeleteO.K FIRST the jacobs bigfoot is a ---juvinile--- hence the small feet,, only the adults have feet in the 14-18 inch range --duh-- secondly matt moneymaker is an attorney and a successful one at that i'm willing to bet he has spent more on this research than he has earned!!!!... and thirdly he only presents the evidence for folks to dicide for themselves ,,,,but then again i guess you could call tens of thousands of eye witness's including one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had along with thousands of years of indian historians A giant bunch of hoaxers if it makes you feel superior and better about yourself ----- good luck with that ---,,,PHIL M.
ReplyDeleteThis crap ranks right up there with his cow comments. Let me shine a little light on this nonsense. People have only had sightings. Siiiggghhhtttiiinngggsss! Do you know what that means? No one has ever been able to study them to know what they do and how they track if they track at all. This guy is either a total fool or genius by getting you people to believe his dribble.
ReplyDeleteI want to know how in the world this guy knows that a sasquatch is gonna have a trail up above a deer trail. If any of you people on here are avid deer hunters you will know that deer have trails all over the sides of hills and mountains. They have them on top...in the middle...at the bottom and everywhere in between. For this guy to come out and say that a sasquatch trail is higher above a deer trail is the dumbest crap I have ever heard.
You fools keep watching this nut job run around in the woods screaming and beating on trees with sticks. It's always comical when people are on tv making asses of themselves and don't know it.
I truly believe that if you spent 2 weeks at a l ocation more success would be discoverd, I live close to where you invesigated in N.C.(Uwharrie Nat forest).Ihave hunted there approx 14 years off & on, and have been escorted out of the woods by a Bigfoot.Im learning that the only evidence that will truly answer the question.there needs to be a corpse,I had a gun & i did not shoot but i was there.I was scared and i frequently go deep into the forest.
ReplyDelete"...There is another photo from a different state which we can't show online,"
ReplyDeleteOf course not. whenever you folks have "actual" proof you can never publish it.
Fakes and frauds.
Funny, we can catch really clear pics of snow leopards and wolverines, (very elusive animals) but trail cams can't catch good pics of bigfoot...that's what makes it so hard for me to believe.
ReplyDelete