The 800 Pound Bigfoot In The Room

OK all, submitted for your dissertation: Why is it in this era of inexpensive, widely available and exquisite high definition photographic equipment are we still being presented with a plethora of blobsquatches? Don't get me wrong; I believe these beings are sharing our planet with us...why can't we manage to photograph one when we've photographed and videoed architeuthis in its natural environment. [b]

If you see a sasquatch, you are shocked and full of initial disbelief. Even if you have a camera on you, by the time it registers that you need to take a picture of him, turn the camera on, and aim...he is gone.

You are correct, even with trail cams and all of the other sensors supposedly employed by the multitude of people that follow this subject; there is not one good quality picture, yet alone a series of pictures. You would think that such a thing would be plausible based not only on the technology but also the amount of people involved / aware and actively trying to capture a photo. There are groups / organizations out there that claim interaction and sightings all of the time, yet none of them can provide even a basic photo, even from their supposed hot spots.

There are the claims that Bigfoot can identify trail cams and other static sensors and just avoid them, or that they can sense cameras and weapons and avoid interaction with the people carrying them, or they have the ability to blur photos and or just be invisible from most electronic devices. The claims go on and on, some are very farfetched while others are a little more plausible.

The question is what are you willing to accept as to the reason why?

Precisely YSPR, I believe the true habituators are key here and to a lesser extent those who would claim the mantle of 'researcher'. Throughout the study of the natural world the casual witness of happenstance, be it the startled camper/hiker catching a fleeting glimpse or the shocked driver seeing something extraordinary cross the road in front of them contribute valuable testimony as to the presence of something here to for undocumented but I believe it is those who have true and actual knowledge of an area of habituation that can break the ice jam here. It will take a high commitment of time, environmental intimacy and patience but I believe it can be done. Long distance, passive sensor, technology can and should be employed along with the tried and true of squatting in a blind for extended periods.
All this blundering around like drunken sailors, tree knocking and call blasting has been shown to be the antithesis of the path to actually gathering truth and knowledge.

these are just opinions. first of all, a true bigfoot sighting is a very, very rare experience. i believe that 99.99% of so called sightings are obvious hoaxes or a very few misidentifications. finding the real deal among all the trash out there is like looking for a needle in a hay stack or a penny in a garbage truck. imho.

We will get some good pictures/video eventually. I think it will just take patience. Some of these expeditions only last a couple of days, I feel that it will take a group to go into an area for a few months to really get some good data for us. Getting a Bigfoot to get used to someone and become a habitual, letting the scientist/researcher to see where they are coming in from and setting up cameras, FLIR, heat sensing equipment that would focus on a certain area.

I am sure there will be some good hard evidence eventually. Meanwhile I still believe.

As for why we don't have a good trail cam pic, well think about coverage. If a trail cam can cover at most 1400 square of coverage**(most cover far less) and you put 100 of them in a 10 acre area(435,600 square feet), which is not that big, that amounts to covering only 32% of the entire 10 acres by the 100 trail cams. And, if you dont have these higher end trail cams that number can be reduced to nearly 12%.
And if these things are real and most likely rare, imagine how many trail cams you'd have to put up in the millions of remote acres of forest to even get a chance of getting a picture.

Not having a trail pic yet is a poor argument.

**http://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/trail-cameras/rcx-trail-cameras/rcx-1-trail-camera/
"Or you can choose to have both sensors active at the same time to activate the full force of the DST sensor zone at nearly 1400 square feet of sensor zone coverage. The Leupold RCX is the only trail camera to offer this ground-breaking technology. A wide 54’ field of view camera lens means you’ll not only see the animals within the 10/45 degree cone’s ”sensing coverage,” but you will see any animals on the fringes (where the big bucks often hang). "

Dobbsquatch you make an excellent point, and it helped me put things in perspective when it comes to the lack of trail cam pics. Thanks for commenting..

No problem. I too thought that trail cams would produce some quick results in regards to sasquatch evidence because these things would be out there 24/7 taking pics of anything that moves. But after listening to a podcast about the use many trail cams to "canvas" a "hotspot", it became clear that to do this properly, the amount of resources you'd need in the form of trail cams (hundreds) and the people needed to service them(get the pics/video off the cards of each trail cam one by one) is a massive undertaking. Imagine having 300 trail cams spread out over a remote area hidden with camoflage and people going out there periodically to service and retrieve the data with only gps points to know where each cam is set up. Then download the data, replace the battery, and finally review the hundreds of pictures.
I don't believe there is a group out there that has enough resources to make it "likely" that they will get a picture/video from a trail cam. I know that the TBRC and the Olympic Project are using this technique but in my estimation they are going to have to get very lucky. Good luck to them, though. A good pic would go a long way, not all the way to proof, but its a good start.

Like many bigfooters, I've used trail cams extensively. I've tried to figure out why I can get pictures of animals and pictures of scenery at different times of day that have no animal in them. The best I can figure is that a sasquatch is warned that something is amiss when the camera's sensor is triggered and a whirring sound occurs before the picture is taken. It's not a loud sound, but in the quiet woods it is perceptible to any sasquatch that may be nearby.

I have seen trail cam pics where deer and coyotes are looking at the trail cam showing that they clearly know its there as/before the pic was taken.

William Dranginis, a bigfoot researcher out of virginia has discovered that even trail cams that claim to be silent do in fact make high pitched ultra-sounds out of the range of humans do to the electronics inside the trail cam. He believes that these noises could be heard by wildlife. I heard him say on a podcast(see below) that he has designed a way to bury the electronics in the ground or even under water (like in a stream) away from the camera so there are no high pitched ultra-sounds detectable, making the camera and recording device completely silent at any audible range. This also makes the camera much easier to hide/disguise because its just the camera lens (lipstick size)and not the electronics (battery and recording equipment). He said he can drill an 1/2" hole in a tree, putting the small camera lens in it to make it virtually invisible. Awesome stuff. Also, his bigfoot sighting with two federal agents is worth listening to as well!

Podcast: The Bigfoot Show
January 9, 2011
Episode 021: Discarded meat (and William Dranginis)

I have a couple ideas on this:
Trail cams, in addition to the fact that they are poorly disguised, like my 4th grade lunch pail, and I use
the analogy that someone puts a big ole box in my living room (their forest living room) they are going to
notice it, AND hear the noises. Its a big ole Lump on my recliner that wasnt there yesterday.

They noticed that everytime they go out with a relative and they get near those dang humans, that one of the relatives heads explode and they get killed. So they know AT ALL COSTS DO NOT GET SEEN BY humans. So they have studied and know what a humans peripheral vision is and they stay clear of that. They can track a human to a certain distance but they better not get within that angle of vision and within a certain range AT ALL COSTS!!!

So thats why we only get blobsquatches. Thats why I think the best way is to go over head with a UAV and look with a FLIR or EO system.
Just my opinions

The 800 pound bigfoot in the room doesn't exist.

The equipment you take your second mortgage out for now will be dirt cheap in a couple of years.

If you're serious about capturing a bigfoot, lock and load or stfu.

Just be careful not to shoot a little black kid like Smeja did.

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:The 800 pound bigfoot in the room doesn't exist.

The equipment you take your second mortgage out for now will be dirt cheap in a couple of years.

If you're serious about capturing a bigfoot, lock and load or stfu.

Just be careful not to shoot a little black kid like Smeja did.

Deliberately killing a sentient being is repugnant and unnecessary...intellectual curiosity should never be sated by murder. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of BF's existence or lack there of but if they do exist they are almost certainly self aware beings. To premeditate the search for such a being in order to kill it just to "prove" their existence is highly barbaric. Actually that's giving barbarians a bad name IMHO. Whether or not the Smeja incident took place, the "little black kid " reference is more suited I feel for the 'other' site.

Go ahead and post once more GYY. If it's anything like the drivel you've posted prior, you will be permanently banned from the forum. Your commentary is no longer welcome here. You are obviously trolling.

You keep saying I'm trolling. I say I have a different viewpoint on the matter than you do. That's all.

The question wrt OP, in part, is why there still isn't definitive photographic evidence of this creature you surely insists is real and in existence.

I say to you there is the very real possibility that it hasn't been photographed because it doesn't exist.

And you start giving me the business. Like Eddie Haskell all over the Beaver.

Have you ever considered that maybe BigFooT isn't real? Or do you bleeve unconditionally?

Farstar wrote:

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:The 800 pound bigfoot in the room doesn't exist.

The equipment you take your second mortgage out for now will be dirt cheap in a couple of years.

If you're serious about capturing a bigfoot, lock and load or stfu.

Just be careful not to shoot a little black kid like Smeja did.

Deliberately killing a sentient being is repugnant and unnecessary...intellectual curiosity should never be sated by murder. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of BF's existence or lack there of but if they do exist they are almost certainly self aware beings. To premeditate the search for such a being in order to kill it just to "prove" their existence is highly barbaric. Actually that's giving barbarians a bad name IMHO. Whether or not the Smeja incident took place, the "little black kid " reference is more suited I feel for the 'other' site.

Point well taken, but how are you going to prove BigFooT's existence if you don't have a carcass? Going no kill and bringing one in voluntarily hasn't been working so well.

And don't jump all over me cause I say shoot on sight. Smeja's the dude who claims to have done just that.

As for the "little black kid" reference, I apologize if anyone was offended. Especially little black kids. I brought it up only because it was in Smeja's initial statements, his own words; I don't want people to forget how this all began and what was said.

But if you really want to bleeve Justin Smeja really killed a squatch that night, go ahead and do that.

Just remember, the guy who tells you he shot TWO OF 'EM doesn't have a body to back it up.

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:You keep saying I'm trolling. I say I have a different viewpoint on the matter than you do. That's all.

The question wrt OP, in part, is why there still isn't definitive photographic evidence of this creature you surely insists is real and in existence.

I say to you there is the very real possibility that it hasn't been photographed because it doesn't exist.

And you start giving me the business. Like Eddie Haskell all over the Beaver.

Have you ever considered that maybe BigFooT isn't real? Or do you bleeve unconditionally?

No there isn't definitive proof, but that is what we like discussing. Whether you believe or not you have to admit it is an interesting subject, that there could be an undiscovered species living right under our noses.

And if you read the posts, some of us have actually seen it.

And yes I believe, even though I have not seen it. So you might call that unconditional, but I just call it faith that there are things out there that I cannot explain, that I keep an open mind to. And I don't berate those that have other opinions than me.

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:

Farstar wrote:

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:The 800 pound bigfoot in the room doesn't exist.

The equipment you take your second mortgage out for now will be dirt cheap in a couple of years.

If you're serious about capturing a bigfoot, lock and load or stfu.

Just be careful not to shoot a little black kid like Smeja did.

Deliberately killing a sentient being is repugnant and unnecessary...intellectual curiosity should never be sated by murder. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of BF's existence or lack there of but if they do exist they are almost certainly self aware beings. To premeditate the search for such a being in order to kill it just to "prove" their existence is highly barbaric. Actually that's giving barbarians a bad name IMHO. Whether or not the Smeja incident took place, the "little black kid " reference is more suited I feel for the 'other' site.

Point well taken, but how are you going to prove BigFooT's existence if you don't have a carcass? Going no kill and bringing one in voluntarily hasn't been working so well.

And don't jump all over me cause I say shoot on sight. Smeja's the dude who claims to have done just that.

As for the "little black kid" reference, I apologize if anyone was offended. Especially little black kids. I brought it up only because it was in Smeja's initial statements, his own words; I don't want people to forget how this all began and what was said.

But if you really want to bleeve Justin Smeja really killed a squatch that night, go ahead and do that.

Just remember, the guy who tells you he shot TWO OF 'EM doesn't have a body to back it up.

So if he SHOT a person as you say. He would have been charged for Manslaughter.
So what did he shoot then in your Opinion? It wasn't a Bear because he woud have had to have it Identified by the Fish and Game. So please what did he shoot?
Aparantly you haven't listened to the interviews and the story being told by both him and the driver.

So what do you claim everyone is seeing out in the woods across the globe? What is his bigfoot creature many people are seeing through out history?

Got Yeti is trolling, so please don't satisfy him by gobbling up the bait. Just ignore him. He's a classic troll----start a fire and then act disparaged when challenged...the pretend to want a discussion.....it's classic trolling....

Ignore these idiots.

Next comes his feigning of feeling slighted by my name calling...etc..etc...

Ignore the troll, and it will retreat back into it's hole.

Farstar wrote:Precisely YSPR, I believe the true habituators are key here and to a lesser extent those who would claim the mantle of 'researcher'. Throughout the study of the natural world the casual witness of happenstance, be it the startled camper/hiker catching a fleeting glimpse or the shocked driver seeing something extraordinary cross the road in front of them contribute valuable testimony as to the presence of something here to for undocumented but I believe it is those who have true and actual knowledge of an area of habituation that can break the ice jam here. It will take a high commitment of time, environmental intimacy and patience but I believe it can be done. Long distance, passive sensor, technology can and should be employed along with the tried and true of squatting in a blind for extended periods.
All this blundering around like drunken sailors, tree knocking and call blasting has been shown to be the antithesis of the path to actually gathering truth and knowledge.

I agree with the thoughtful posters here and I’m learning from your perspectives too (especially Dobbsquatch’s notes on coverage – thanks for the perspective!).

I’m quoting Farstar and parlaying that with other’s reactions like SS Sue’s notion of shock-n-disbelief. I get it, agree and will comment on that too as well as the importance of habituators.

** I am amazed though when I read a dissertation by a so-called researcher that says “my camera was charging in the truck” or “I had no extra batteries” or “everyone else went to bed when we arrived except “Me” --- yuk yuk. Gots to make you wonder. I’m referring to a recent article by a so-called researcher that just released his unusual experience arriving at the Sierra Kills site. Reads like a lot of hype and an advertisement to this upcoming documentary – ok, yeah, whatever, the Dude sounds like a putz and the whole Smeja thing reeks of impropriety. **

Back to what I quoted … I thoroughly enjoy the posts of folks that have Backyard Bigfoots or are people that frequent their own land or some known land repeatedly and document eccentricities (The whole notion of whom is habituating whom is curious). These folks (seemingly without a mission) appear to be documenting the most valuable information. Most seem to be unassuming, open-minded, open-spirited, in-awe of nature, etc. etc.

Ya know what I am suspicious of ... the 800 Lb. Researcher that appears on TV or on a Blog Feed.

There is a Biggie that no one is thinking about. Why is Patty relatively clear for the distance and time, and modern stuff blurry? Our own technology is why. Who actually manually focuses anymore?

That one pic on the blog, the skeptics were saying "Funny how the branches in front of the bigfoot are clear and the bigfoot is blurry".. Actually there is nothing funny about that at all. A digital cam is going to focus on what is nearest to it first. sometimes it might get stuck on what is nearest to it. Your eye is focusing on the bigfoot, but the camera is focusing on the nearest object to it.

Then there is the shock factor... You see it and you still had the nerve to raise your camera, and you have the thought to focus it... But your adrenaline is pumping hard and getting that right focus before it runs off is probably not the easiest of tasks.

I believe a true photographer should accustom themselves to manually focusing on whatever their subject might be. Take lots of pictures of many different things, both near and distant. Practice on animate wildlife such as birds and small mammals. Time yourself to see how quickly you can spot a subject, retrieve your camera from neck strap or pocket, focus and shoot. Though if actually in eyesight of a Sasquatch smooth movements would probably be preferable to 'hercky-jercky' ones. Good luck on any quests Blondie 1!

On the focusing question, everyone now is carrying some damn good cameras in their cell phones. My iPhones camera is better than
my $2000 Canon Rebel from a decade or so ago. They focus infinity at a short distance so we should be seeing something.
Unless what I said about BF knowing that Humans with Guns instead of Cameras are pretty darn dangerous.