Wednesday, March 23, 2016

If You Can see These Game Cameras, Bigfoot Probably Can Too


The Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization takes us along for the journey in the Monte Cristo area. They are servicing their trail cameras in an area that has produced 6 reported bigfoot sightings. Is bigfoot watching them along the way? Did they accidentally capture any sasquatches? I'm sure some of you will be able to find some. Check it out:


33 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. ^also answers to...SUEEEY,and HERE BOY
      HAHAHAHA

      AC COLLINS

      Delete
  2. Excuses excuses excuses nothing but excuses.

    Humans can see trail cams and yet trail cams still get plenty of footage of humans. Why? Because humans actually exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Normal humans aren't wild and therefore wouldn't be tuned to such an environment, therefore being caught out. We have expert Native trackers who would be able to see the passage of someone who has erected such devices even before coming across trail cams. Think something that has evolved in that environment. Understanding the abilities of a wild human requires a little bit of imagination to fathom what they could accomplish. Considering you have no capacity to think for yourself, nobody expects you to be able to manage that.

      Your naivety is not anyone else's excuses.

      Delete
    2. Excuses excuses excuses nothing but excuses.

      Caught out? Trail cameras get plenty of footage of humans who can plainly see the trail cam. There's lots of footage of humans even trying to steal the trail camera.

      But no bigfoots. Not one. Lots of owls and bears and raccoon ears but no bigfoots.

      Trail cameras have no problem getting images of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and other primates. Often common primate curiosity draws the to the cameras. But for some reason the primate known as bigfoot is not curious about trail cameras. No, apparently bigfoot goes to great lengths to avoid trail cameras.

      Bigfoot avoids trail cameras by not existing.

      Delete
    3. "... requires a little bit of imagination..." is an understatement.

      Delete
    4. http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

      Sure there's plenty of images of humans on trail cams, but how in any logical process of thinking does the photographing of a creature not intuned to a wilderness environment, mean that one that is, and hasn't been photographed doesn't exist? Let's just say, if a domesticated dog gets photographed by a trail cam photo and a coyote doesn't, does that mean that coyotes don't exist? Remember, there's forensic evidence for the existence of what's being widely reported, and they ain't dumb animals. Coyote's also have papers written on them about how excellent they are at managing to avoid trail cameras... Think what a creature that can think like a human can achieve.

      Also... Humans who are seen by trail cams usually aren't too preoccupied with trying to be avoided by them, whilst these are erected on TRAILS, where hunters usually follow. If you're stupid enough to try and pinch a trail camera that's photographed you, then you're probably not Albert Einstein, and can't really be put in the same class as even the basic of trackers. Anyway... There's trail cam photos, and your naivety isn't anyone else's excuses.

      5:03... The only imagination you're preoccupied with is when you close your eyes in that lovely bedroom of yours... EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.

      Delete
    5. Nice bear pics.

      There are plenty of trail camera pictures of coyotes. Google it yourself. There are even trail camera pictures of species that are supposedly "extinct" like that humbolt marten those bluff creek fellows got pictures of. But then those guys know how to use trail cameras properly, and they don't make excuses.

      So we have trail cam pictures of humans and coyotes and bears and mountain lions and humbolt martens and chimpanzees and even bili apes now. But not one bigfoot. We do get lots of excuses from people who don't understand trail cameras or animal behavior or much of anything really. No bigfoots.

      Delete
    6. http://youtu.be/kar3kQWzUw8
      ... You'll notice in that link an excellent video which basically PROVES it's not a bear.

      Sure, there are trail cam photos of coyotes, but the fact that they can successfully avoid trail cameras in instances demonstrates how a creature with intelligence akin to a wild animal might manage avoidance... That's to not even considering something that can think like a human. Sure, they can photograph all sorts of rare species, but by referencing the link in my comment, so can we draw the same from Sasquatch... Nobody's making excuses for that... Other than you.

      Like I said... Your naivety isn't anyone else's excuses, kid.

      Delete
    7. That video only proves that the maker of that video does not know what a bear actually looks like.

      And you have no proof that coyotes avoid trail cameras. A lack of coyotes on a particular trail camera memory card could simply mean a lack of coyotes. More likely it's coyotes avoiding the scent of humans near the trail camera, not the trail camera itself, which is something that has actually been observed in coyotes, but has never, ever, been observed in bigfoots.

      On the contrary, bigfoots seem to be attracted to the scent of gullible fools and hoaxers.

      Delete
    8. No, the video proves that the subject in the trail cam photo in the link sourced is a primate... Be a big boy and take a look.

      http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

      ... Coyotes avoiding the scent of human passage around trail cameras is somehow out of possible for a wild human? If you listen to experienced hunters, after about a week in the wilderness, their senses become far more intuned to their environment, sense of smell, hearing, etc. Something that has evolved in such environments, three times the nasal capacity, and that can think like a human is gonna be far more successful. If your existence depends on avoiding hunters with guns, why would you follow game trails?

      You never know... One day you might grow a brain cell and finally put your money where your mouth is and actually demonstrate that this subject renders people gullible.

      Delete
    9. You've never actually seen a real wild bear, have you? At best you've only seen the fat, well fed ones at the zoo. Well that's exactly what a mother bear looks like after spending too much energy all summer trying to raise too many cubs instead of building up fat reserves.

      And for all their wariness, coyotes still get caught on trail cams. Bigfoots don't. Because bears and coyotes exist. Bigfoots don't.

      And again, if these on-existant bigfoots are soo adept at avoiding trail cams, why are they so astoundingly bad at avoiding bumpkins with camera phones? How do they know that bumpkin doesn't have a gun?

      Excuses excuses excuses nothing but excuses. Next you'll be telling us bigfoots avoid trail cams by turning invisible and traveling through portals.

      Delete
    10. Unfortunately, how well fed the creature is, is irrelevant... The anatomy highlighted in the video up top, by a biologist I might add, demonstrates that it is a primate. Go on, be brave and open the link, you never know... You may even be enlightened.

      Nobody is claiming that coyotes don't get caught on trail cams, coyotes have methods of doing it however, and there are studies on this. The point that you're avoiding is, is those are coyotes, and something with wild senses but can think like a human would be far more successful.

      It appears that "Bigfoot" get caught on trail cams as well. Don't like it? Prove it with something a little cleverer than circular logic. I wouldn't say they're all that successful at avoiding camera phones or any other cameras to be honest;
      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
      http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
      http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
      http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
      http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
      http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI

      For wildlife photographers for example, these images are attained by professionals with professional equipment. I find it laughable that most "sceptics" require photographs, when every photograph or footage has and always will be a man in a suit or these days, SFX. The appliance of rhetorical arguments to make the perception of normal circumstance. Even wildlife photographers are assigned specific instructions and are allocated specific areas that would imply specific results. They are also professionals with professional equipment that usually erect little hideouts that don't do much for hiding against a creature with the wilderness awareness of five green berets, whereas the majority of this field are people from the general public who have to capture images of a far more evasive and intelligent creature than that of the projects of most wildlife biologists (the innumerable blobsquatches testify to this)."

      Like I suggested, if I couldn't provide an example of a "Bigfoot" on a trail camera, then I'd be making excuses... To me, to anyone in fact, you don't even have excuses just denial and circular logic... And for something that should be so painfully easy to explain away, why do you fail so comprehensively?

      Hmmmmmm... I wonder???

      Delete
    11. Oh... And you might want to read below...

      Delete
    12. Sorry but ignorance of ursine and primate anatomy coupled with gross mis-measurements and invalid assumptions can not turn a bear into a bigfoot.

      Nor are there proven, conclusive bigfoots in any of the footage you ever provide. The PG footage is the best, and even it's too fuzzy and shaky and distance to be conclusive.

      Worse yet for your case, the aspects of the PG footage that make it slightly believable also specifically rule out your own stupid "bigfoot is human" ideology. Which amuses me to no end, because it means if the PG film is right, then you, bigfoot babbler extraordinaire, are STILL WRONG.

      Delete
    13. If the assertion is that primate anatomy is now suddenly akin to that of a bear, then I would expect you would have at least some means of proving it. Anyone can say anything on a blog like this, using circular logic like it's gospel and expecting it to stick might give you five minutes of satisfaction... It's whether it actually sticks that counts and the ball is now in your court.

      I don't have a problem with the PGF images. Countless others who don't have a burden of explaining it away don't either... And "fuzzy and shaky" considering the footage has been digitalised and stabelised for many years now to me pretty much sounds like (cough, cough), excuses? What's conclusive, is that no SFX fur cloth method explains what we see in that footage, nor does it explain away the proportions.

      There is nothing... Not one little aspect of what we see in the PGF that can't be attributed to both modern humans, ancient humans and primitive humans in our lineage. What's amusing is reading you thinking you know a thing or two about anatomy, only to get someone who's "so obviously wrong all the time" like me have to steer you in the way of primary school level facts. That can't be good for your self esteem now, can it?

      The comment sections don't lie.

      : )

      Delete
  3. Trail cameras emit ultra-high frequency noise at frequencies beyond the ability of humans to hear it. Like many animals, sasquatches may be able to hear in this high frequency range. This let's them know that these cameras are there, and they stay away from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet bigfoots can't avoid low quality photos/videos and sightings all the time? Never high quality or conclusive evidence. Always poor quality. They perfectly walk that line.

      Delete
    2. Duh?? That would be because low quality photos wouldn't emit ultra-high frequencies? Does your religion automatically render you as dense as a box of frogs?

      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... There's some "high quality evidence". If you're thinking your prayers might make it go away, unfortunately you'll have heathens like me bringing you down to earth.

      Delete
    3. Low quality photos don't emit ultra-high frequencies? Where'd you get that one, professor?

      Oh, and since this seems to be a foreign concept to you, let me explain. When I talk about quality, I'm not talking about the quality of the camera, I'm talking about their quality as evidence.

      Delete
    4. "Ultra high frequencies"?

      Really?

      More like ultra lame excuses from ultra high bigfoot "researchers" who don't know how trail cameras work.

      And who somehow think a paper on a film shot with a 1960's vintage 16mm Cine-Kodak K-100 has any relevance to modern trail cameras. Try to stay on topic for once.

      Delete
    5. 7:15... Where did I get that one from? The common sense bank, basic cameras do not operate to omitting a high frequency, whereas trail cameras do. It's not as foreign as it is you being unable to understand the requirements of science, and repeatable scientific evidence can't be trumped with any rhetorical cry baby techniques.

      The reason that piece of footage is relevant, is because you can't get any more "high quality" and detailed. So much so that we can readily see anatomy outside of any monkey suit achievable from the late 1960's. There's quality photographic evidence... Sorry it's at the expense of your self esteem.

      Delete
    6. You certainly can and should get higher quality and more detailed. Accepting anything less exposes your bias.

      Delete
    7. You need more detail than what the PGF can offer you, and you point fingers about bias? Why do you want photos so badly when you have a million excuses when today's SFX?

      Rhetorical boy.

      Delete
    8. Where are you idiots getting this "high frequency" crap from?

      To save battery life, any trail camera is going to go into pico power sleep mode while waiting for a signal from its pyroelectric motion sensor. That means shutting down all oscillators and going static. So no high frequency. No low frequency. That means NO frequency. Until the motion sensor triggers and the camera starts itself back up by which time it's too late to avoid.

      This is why trigger delay in trail cameras is a thing and such an important thing to consider when purchasing one.

      Now cell phones, those emit all sorts of noise all the time, but that doesn't stop people from taking blurry pictures of b̶i̶g̶f̶o̶o̶t̶ stumps with them, now does it?

      Delete
    9. Jayjeti;

      "There are several motion detection technologies in wide use:
      1. Passive infrared (PIR)
      2. Microwave
      3. Ultrasonic
      4. Tomographic motion detector

      "Many modern motion detectors use combinations of different technologies. While combining multiple sensing technologies into one detector can help reduce false triggering, it does so at the expense of reduced detection probabilities and increased vulnerability. For example, many dual-tech sensors combine both a PIR sensor and a microwave sensor into one unit. In order for motion to be detected, both sensors must trip together. This lowers the probability of a false alarm since heat and light changes may trip the PIR but not the microwave, or trees may trigger the microwave but not the PIR. If an intruder is able to fool the PIR or microwave, however, the sensor will not detect. Dual-tech sensors are only as strong as their weakest link."
      Question: are microwave sensors creating infrasound? The microwave motion sensor sends out alternating frequencies of radiation, but the receiver detects the changes in a low audio frequency. Likewise, reading what it says about ultrasonic motion sensors, it says it sends out high frequency sounds, but it says just like microwave motion sensors it too is received back in low audio frequencies.

      Infrasound is sound waves with frequencies below the lower limit of human audibility (low audio frequencies). It's widely believed that sasquatches produce infrasound vocally, and many also speculate they might communicate with each other via infrasound. If a lot of trail cams are using microwave or ultrasonic motion sensors then perhaps sasquatches are hearing low audio frequencies. Ultrasonic sound waves are at a frequency above the upper limit of human hearing. We can't hear infrasonic or ultrasonic audio frequencies but perhaps bigfoot can, at least infrasonic hearing is very likely. It's a fact that there are animals that can hear beyond the range of human hearing.

      So, sasquatches might not simply be hearing the hum of an electrical device, as some speculate as the source of the problem, but it could be the motion sensor itself is creating the sound they are hearing, which if that is the case there would be no way to quiet a trail cam employing that mode of sensor to detect movement. Therefore, we need to research the trail cameras we contemplate deploying in the field."
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/257-sasquatch-trail-cam-avoidance-theories/

      Delete
    10. CONCLUSION REACHED BY DR. KIRLIN AND LASSE HERTEL ON THE SIERRA SOUNDS
      "The results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male. The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration. Although a time-varying speed could possibly produce such formant distributions, an objective hearing and the articulation rate do not support that hypothesis.
      Statistical analysis was applied to groups of vocal tract estimates from different vocalizations and a significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with human data the results indicated that there could possibly be three speakers, one of which is non-human. The average vocal tract length was found to be 20.2 cm. This is significantly longer than for a normal human male. Extrapolation of average estimators, using human proportions, gives height estimates of between 6’4” and 8’2”. Analysis of the rapid articulations in the beginning of the recording (gob-gob) resulted in human-like vocal tract lengths. Also, the sound /g/ in “gob” suggests a human-like vocal tract (two vocal cavities).
      The pitch periods found cover the broad range of pitch periods for both normal human male and low-pitched human male. However, they are mainly distributed around the data for the low-pitched human male. Pitch and length estimates vary considerably but they are all found to be within the 95 per cent confidence interval for human speech with varying tape speed; however, assuming that there is only one vocalizer, then time-varying tape speed is necessary to produce data over such a wide range.

      Both typical human whistles and some abnormal types of whistles were found. By using the formants from the abnormal whistles, very short vocal tract lengths were estimated. These whistles could either have been produced with some kind of a musical instrument or by the creature using only a part of its vocal tract. It is hoped that the remaining uncertainties will not be considered reason for dismissing the recordings. The possibilities for prerecording are many, but there is no clear reason to believe it is likely. If Bigfoot is actually proven to exist, the vocalizations on these tapes may well be of great anthropological value, being a unique observation of Bigfoot in his natural environment."
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      Delete
    11. Only one kind of motion detector is used in off the shelf trail cameras. Passive pyroelectric sensors. With the rest of the unit turned off while waiting for movement to conserve battery power. They don't emit high frequencies. they don't emit low frequencies. They emit no frequencies. Nothing. Claiming otherwise in some desperate and pathetic attempt to excuse your failure to produce one conclusive bigfoot trail camera picture is only proving your own gross ignorance of how trail cameras work.

      Delete
    12. "There are several motion detection technologies in wide use:

      1. Passive infrared (PIR)
      Passive infrared sensors are sensitive to a person's skin temperature through emitted black body radiation at mid-infrared wavelengths, in contrast to background objects at room temperature. No energy is emitted from the sensor, thus the name "passive infrared" (PIR). This distinguishes it from the electric eye for instance (not usually considered a "motion detector"), in which the crossing of a person or vehicle interrupts a visible or infrared beam.

      2, Microwave
      These detect motion through the principle of Doppler radar, and are similar to a radar speed gun. A continuous wave of microwave radiation is emitted, and phase shifts in the reflected microwaves due to motion of an object toward (or away from) the receiver result in a heterodyne signal at low audio frequencies.

      3. Ultrasonic
      An ultrasonic wave (sound at a frequency higher than a human can hear) is emitted and reflections from nearby objects are received. Exactly as in Doppler radar, heterodyne detection of the received field indicates motion. The detected doppler shift is also at low audio frequencies (for walking speeds) since the ultrasonic wavelength of around a centimeter is similar to the wavelengths used in microwave motion detectors. One potential drawback of ultrasonic sensors is that the sensor can be sensitive to motion in areas where coverage isn't desired, for instance, due to reflections of sound waves around corners. Such extended coverage may be desirable for lighting control, where the point is detection of any occupancy in an area. But for opening an automatic door, for example, one would prefer a sensor selective to traffic in the path toward the door.

      4. Tomographic motion detector
      Tomographic motion detection systems sense disturbances to radio waves as they pass from node to node of a mesh network. They have the ability to detect over complete areas because they can sense through walls and obstructions.

      http://en.wikipedia....Motion_detector

      Of the four mentioned above, only the first one is passive. # 1 (PIR) looks for body heat and does not emit anything. All the others are actively emitting something. The above description seems to say microwave sensors emit radiation which in turn creates a low audio sound and ultrasonic sensors emit a high frequency sound that likewise is received back as a low frequency sound. In Browning's e-mail reply to Thomas they said,

      "Our cameras do not emit any frequencies that are noticeable by animals"

      Delete
    13. That implies the cameras do create audio frequencies, but Browning is saying it is not at a threshold that animals can hear. Is the verdict still out on that? Of course we can't here it. "Heterodyne" mentioned as a result of the microwave sensor is a frequency beyond human hearing. I suppose one should specifically ask the manufacturer which motion sensor technology does Browning incorporate in its game cams.

      Of all the motion sensors, I wonder if trail cams with passive infrared is the way to go? And do makers of game cams even exclusively use that type of motion sensor technology? Maybe none do since at the above link it says most motion sensors use dual modes of sensing. It states,

      "Many modern motion detectors use combinations of different technologies. While combining multiple sensing technologies into one detector can help reduce false triggering, it does so at the expense of reduced detection probabilities and increased vulnerability. For example, many dual-tech sensors combine both a PIR sensor and a microwave sensor into one unit. In order for motion to be detected, both sensors must trip together. This lowers the probability of a false alarm since heat and light changes may trip the PIR but not the microwave, or trees may trigger the microwave but not the PIR. If an intruder is able to fool the PIR or microwave, however, the sensor will not detect. Dual-tech sensors are only as strong as their weakest link."
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/257-sasquatch-trail-cam-avoidance-theories/

      Oh... And if you missed it... Here's a trail cam photo;
      http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp
      ... Nobody's making excuses for that, kid.

      Delete
  4. I guess people must in particular require producer which in turn mobility sensor concept will do Lightly browning feature on the nation's adventure cameras.

    ReplyDelete