|
Post by zacksith on Feb 19, 2010 23:29:39 GMT -5
Hello , i just signed up on these forums a couple days ago and i have been reading ever since. I have been fascinated with Sasquatch since i was a little boy. I wanted to thank u all for some amazing reading !! I have a question... with all the Monster quest shows i have seen (about 10 of em ) every expeditions i have seen they always use trail cams. Has anyone every considered the fact that maybe the cams give out some sort of high pitch noise or something that Sas can hear or smell that would keep them away? i know they work well for other animals. does anyone know if apes have any special hearing like dogs with a high pitch whistle. I have camped around allot of hot spots in the area( 20 mile bay,chehalis river by the bridge,Hope,Wigeon lake,Sasquatch Nat park,Golden ears park ) and its funny i have been camping there many times with no encounters I live in port coquitlam and am very interested in doing some scouting or a remote camping trip with some more vet people this spring or summer . Are there any trips planned this spring i could possibly attend?
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Feb 20, 2010 14:15:19 GMT -5
Next time you go camping, try this! 1. Announce your presence by grabbing a biggish rock, finding a large boulder and giving it a few good loud whacks. You might want to do this several times if you're there for a while. 2. get some salt, or salt blocks and leave salt chunks near the rock that you banged on. Then go away. Check it before you leave. 3. Whistle, sing, fry and enjoy bacon, have a great time and don't act like a hunter or a threat. Project a happy, positive outlook. I'm sure you also are aware of taking care of yourself out there, coming protected, and keeping your food away from bears. Camp smart. Think survival. Have back-up plans in place, and tell people where you're going and when you're expected back. Don't forget to look for tracks! I hope this works for you, and good luck!
|
|
|
Post by zacksith on Feb 20, 2010 15:31:08 GMT -5
yeah thxs allot for the info , i am planning a camping trip up to the end of pitt lake this summer and ill try some of that forsure. do u know the area at all up there ? i see on google earth there is a settlement named alvin up there and was kinda curious about it .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 15:40:40 GMT -5
Anyone see the IR footage shot by a reseacher named Mike Green? He has been staking a spot for the past couple of years and has been using IR to look for Sasquatch. Recently, he showed a video he took of a purported Bigfoot taking a food offering (candy bar) left on stump. Here's the link (ya, It's a BFRO channel, but I think they happen to do some good work) www.youtube.com/user/BFROVIDEOS
|
|
|
Post by zacksith on Feb 20, 2010 15:45:47 GMT -5
yeah have seen it before and it very interesting footage. i wish i could hear of some NEW sightings around the lower main land area . Hoping this spring and Summer and eventfully
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Feb 21, 2010 20:56:25 GMT -5
Not the safest area up there, take protection of some kind against bears, and actually one guy here did a several day trip up there last year (I think) and got charged by what he thought was an aggressive sasquatch. So if they're there they might not like company. Also lots of people have disappeared up that-a-way. Just be smart, be careful.
I saw the main bits of the Greene infrared video and thought it was interesting but inconclusive.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Feb 21, 2010 23:05:44 GMT -5
Hi Zack. I own trail-cams and they have no high-pitched noises. They are virtually silent. No BF is going to have better hearing than a dog or a cat. Definitely nowhere near the hearing of a deer. All these animals are routinely captured on trail-cams. The only explanation for BF not being caught on them, is that they aren't in the area. I hope you don't put too much faith in the MonsterQuest series. For your outings, take a gps and google maps of the area, as well as the usual necessary items. Definitely self-protection. Not that kind. Bear spray at the least. And for the price, it's crazy not to have a S.P.O.T. locater nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Dec 28, 2010 15:40:02 GMT -5
I agree with dualie! If one were trying to get a picture of a bear or cougar and failed, one would not think that they could detect the trail cam...just that there was no bear or cougar in the area. I feel very reluctant to attribute superior senses over other animals.to these creatures. Why would they need superior senses?
|
|
|
Post by mariner on Mar 5, 2011 22:38:46 GMT -5
Just a thought - but given the very good sense of smell that wild animals have ( bears smelling bait from distances greater than half a mile away), it would seem very reasonable that any game camera could have a smell attached to it. If it is not a normal smell for the wild animals, they most likely would be vary wary and possibly keep clear - uness there was something to attract them in the first place (eg.rotting meat ).
As I say, just a thought - possibly noise is not the deciding factor but scent and sight - especially night vision. These are two atributes that most humans do not possess and what hearing most people have has been compromised by modern technology (noisy vehicles, planes, pop music etc.).
I have watched my dog enter an area where I have just put something new there - he usually makes a beeline for it, smells it and then walks away. A little extrapolation and if Sasquatch does exist in the wild - chances are he would do the same sort of thing. If unfamiliar smells and sights are present, chances are it would be vary wary and either stay away or wait and see some distance away.
Just my thoughts - animals are not stupid and I would think that Sasquatch, should it exist, would be equally as well suited for listening, smelling, seeing etc. and reports indicate that they are very intelligent on their own too good enough to reason in a definite manner.
Thanks
mariner
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Mar 8, 2011 0:26:01 GMT -5
well, here's a bear that didn't seem too bothered by my smell that was everywhere. and he didn't even notice the trailcam. when they do, there's usually a picture of their nose up nice and close. Attachments:
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Mar 8, 2011 0:53:22 GMT -5
ignore the date on the photo. i never update it. this was from this fall's hunting season. not only was my scent all over the area, i had set my gun down in several areas. i've never seen any evidence that animals are bothered by human scent in the slightest. i know all the american hunting shows and magazines love to preach that, but i'd say it's all marketing to sell all their various scent-covers. i've never tried to mask my scent ever. i'm able to get within 10 yards of coyotes. and these aren't city coyotes that are used to humans. these are wild coyotes that, at the sound of a twig snapping, run for the hills and don't look back. the main thing that i do is always stay upwind. i've walked through an area, moved on into further areas, and circled back on the way out. deer have walked right down my tracks. my scent didn't mean a thing, they were choosing the easiest path through the snow. and this is while i'm carrying a rifle and hunting these very deer. making assumptions like bf having super-hearing or amazing scent-recognition and therefore are rarely seen, is more of an excuse as to why they aren't being seen. it's much more realistic that they just aren't in the area.
|
|
|
Post by mariner on Mar 8, 2011 5:53:08 GMT -5
Most plastics have a smell perculiar to them - unlike a natural smell as found in the wild. That is more of what I was alluding too.
Bears that are hungry, for the most part are not bothered by human scents - as illustrated in the raiding of camp sites looking for food that they get the scent of.
If BF is supposed to be, for the most part, reluctant to be in the same locality as humans, then it would make sense that they tend to shy away from areas where humans are known to be. Just like humans, animals come with various personal traits - some curious, some pushy and greedy - others indifferent - who knows.
Anyway, if the reports supplied by people are true, then there must be a reason for the reluctance for BF to be so quick to get away after being seen. Again, there are the reports of agressive behaviour where campers, hikers have been warned by thrown rocks, loud howling/screams, shaking of trees etc.
As far as being present all the time - like any animal/creature they walk and wander as the mood takes them. The frequency of being seen is more likely accidental - like when the presence of others is not known.
Thanks
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Mar 8, 2011 16:15:35 GMT -5
we must also realize that all these reports and stories have zero evidence to back up the claims. someone hearing a splash in the water, or seeing a rock thrown from the bushes, does not equate to a bf being the culprit. only if the bf was actually seen throwing the rock should it be then told as a bf encounter. the same as hearing supposed wood-knocks. if a bf isn't seen making the noises, then it shouldn't be automatically assumed that it had to be a bf. we have basically concluded that bf has a higher intelligence than a typical animal. would they really be a wanderer/roamer then? bears and other animals have basic migratory routes. wouldn't it make more sense that bf, being of superior intelligence, would have a home area and spend most time there? if they were roamers, i'd expect skeletons to be found and them being seen with infants more often. and if they are in an area, they would never be able to hide their tracks during the snowy months. i've yet to see a quality track in the snow. most are melted blobs that are claimed to be 'genuine'. another interesting scenario, is how some people seem to have an encounter every single time they step into the woods. an usually it's not even remote locations. it's walking down hiking trails and sitting in campsites. these are more likely examples of over-eager imaginations. if a bf is going to throw rocks at people, peer into their home windows, stroll across highways, and play the bongos in the forest, why would they be 'afraid' of a trailcam? if i'm not getting a bf on a trailcam, it's because they're not in the area. even if they avoided the cam, a few hundred pound biped isn't walking around anywhere without leaving signs of their presence.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Mar 8, 2011 16:29:10 GMT -5
even a coyote that has been fed on by other animals leaves sign of their existance behind. and these bones would be considerably smaller and easier to disappear than a bf's. at least i would assume that to be true. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on May 18, 2011 11:54:28 GMT -5
I have to admit; that for an animal which very few people in this world have ever encountered there sure seems to be a lot of information about it out there! Why is that? Through diligent scientific research? That would require experiment and a conclusion. An experiment is only scientific if it is repeated over and over and comes up with the same result..and this leads to a conclusion. Only in Sasquatch research are conclusions arrived at with little if any experimentation. Is it scientific to repeatedly set up a game cam and not get a picture of a sasquatch and somehow come to the conclusion that the sasquatch is much more intelligent than you and purposely thwarts your plans? Or that his superior senses allows him to tweak your nose? Or is it more scientific to assume that the camera did not take a picture of the subject because the subject did not turn up? The camera can take a picture of every animal which passes by, including people, who are supposed to be pretty smart. But it did not take a picture of a sasquatch, or an elephant, for the obvious scientific reason...that one did not pass by! Why did one not pass by? Because they either do not exist, or there were none in the area! It has to be one of the two options. I mean, if it is of this world, than it has to play by the standards for life in this world! That is just nature!
|
|