Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2007 3:06:18 GMT -5
just some casual thoughts. Check this forum daily and noticed not alot of new posts. So unless your formally educated in the the field i think the majority would agree that cryptozoology and in this case Sasquatch research is largley persude by the amateur or private enthusiast. Theres no interest or funding from the scientific community. What would the scientific community be doing if their was political will or whatever to fund that research? Would it be mulit month expeditions into the deep forest? Funding for dozens if not more camera traps? It makes me wonder just how significantly one can increase the odds by going into the bush for a month? If their as reclusive as they have been documented to be...wouldnt have great chance of seeing them in clearing i would think. Dont know if i would want to run into one in the deep woods either. Mabey try something like the skookum bait? Makes we wish i can think of a better way...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2007 22:26:19 GMT -5
I have to agree with you that Sasquatch research is done almost exclusively by amateurs and enthusiasts. Most of us probably spend only a few weekends a year out "in the field". I think that the possiblility of seeing a sasquatch in a clearing are not as bad as you think. There are many reports of them being seen in clearcuts and mountain meadows. I believe that one of their tactics when caught in a clearing is to "become a stump". Even with careful glassing they are just a stump unless they move. The problem of searching in deep forest is there could be something 20 feet away and you couldn't be sure what it was. Another problem is that they don't leave very good footprints because their feet have no sharp edges. They will leave no clear indication of their passing in moss or dry logging roads. I think my best bet is to watch clearcuts and bald mountains from a distance with binoculars and spotting scope. I still need an adapter to allow me to attach a small digital camera to the spotting scope. You can get some amazing pictures even handheld. I wish there was someone here with some sound-blasting experience. I would love to learn that technique.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2007 8:29:22 GMT -5
Hey tnks for the response Bear Hunter. For sure you are correct about spotting a sasquatch in a clear cut or meadow. I never thought that thru very good as i do know theres ++ reports of this kind. Gotta stop drinking beers when i post..lol. The become a stump idea is great. Your probably right as deep forest may be a waste of time? I had no idea one could attach a digital camera to a spotting scope. That would seem to me to be a superior technique . Sound blasting - wonder if that happens with any regularity in the Harrison area? Looks like BFRO got some audio. Just came back from Quenel and 100 mile. Did about 300 km on forest service roads. To bad not many sightings in Cariboo as it would of been ++ fun. Gonna go check out Harrison or Chehalios soon. Hope not to many rowdies or yahoos up there.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Jul 24, 2007 12:13:36 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of call blasting! I do not see the point of sending out an unknown noise in the hopes of getting an unknown noise in return. And yes! The BFRO seem to be able to get results just by their mere presence. While people who have been privately researching for decades can't get a wiff of squatch! Hmmmmmm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 1:18:02 GMT -5
I think sound blasting could increase your odds of getting your wiff of sasquatch. Others report something responding to there calls. we need to find out what it is. I hope bfro manages to record one with one of their thermal imagers soon. When I started actively searching for sasquatch a few years ago, my first goal was to find tracks. I have done that (and feel extemely lucky) and had a glimpse but now my goal is to get a picture. Not having a thermal imager, I will continue to hunt during the day but am making plans to try some blasting. I am considering attending a bfro camp to learn some of their techniques.
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Jul 25, 2007 23:47:40 GMT -5
Seriously, BFRO's expeditions are tourism. I don't think that there is any reliable "technique" to attract sasquatch. Don't waste your money on thermal imaging device. None of the recordable thermal image can be used conculsively. The res is so low, one can barely recognise the shape of the thermal objects. What I would buy is a HD prosumer camcorder like Canon XL1S HD.
Sound blasting is fun to try out, I did it before and strange vocal call back for a minute down by Skagit. But, what was the source of the vocal is still largely guesswork. Fun to do once in a while, but not reliable. Why not learn some wildlife photography and videography techniques instead?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2007 23:36:17 GMT -5
BFRO expeditions may be tourism (not that there's anything wrong with that ) but it does serve a useful purpose in getting like minded people together to share ideas and find strategies that might work better. They do count unidentified vocalization as a class b encounter which probably gives them their high success rate. Sound blasting is just another tool to try to discover the answer to a mystery. So it might not be sasquatch, but then what is it? Thermal images (even low resolution) of what is making those sounds could at least tell us if it's 2 or 4 legged. Some researchers seem to have been approached quite closely when blasting. I realize that sound blasting in the dark only gives you the opportunity to record audio responses which proves nothing. Your idea of learning wildlife photography and videography techniques has much merit as I (and probably most sasquatch hunters) need to have a reason to keep going out in the field after so many times not getting a wiff. I currently try to get pictures of most wildlife I see but mainly to improve my response time for when I find sasquatch in the open. I have started keeping track of number of bears I see to see if I can get a correlation of 1 sasquatch for 200 bears. This would of course assume that sasquatch has the same intelligence as bears (unlikely). I am at 4 bears in 2007. In Clayton Mack's (coastal bear hunting guide) books he reports seeing 2 sasquatch (and 1 dinasour) but his bear sighting (which he doesn't count) were probably in the thousands.
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Jul 29, 2007 14:19:45 GMT -5
Bella Coola is a "hot spot", so to speak. The ecologically rich valley can support many bears and possible quite a few sasquatch. The only problem is that we simply don't know if the population of sasquatch is as evenly distributed as of the black bears. We know that grizzlies only occupy prime habitats; only young ones yet to develop their own territories may venture out of their "normal" range. But I do think that sasquatch can be ecologically comparable to grizzlies to a certain extend. About the thermal imager, I still think that it is not useful in sasquatch research unless the price will drop dramatically. A night vision aided by an external IR spot light can be far more effective. I have a homemade IR spot light, and it can be used with something like a Sony Handycam with super night shot. Next time if we have a Westcoast sasquatch get-together, I will show you how to make an IR spot light less than $20.00. No doubt about the BFRO expeditions can be very educational, but it seems like that their expeditions are about generating results ( you can't charge people a few hundred bucks and have nothing to show for). In such a way, I cannot trust them completely. Soundblasting, as I said before, is not a reliable method of attracing sasquatch. Otherwise, the mystery would have been over long ago. But you are right about soundblasting can allow one to research what kind of animal will be attracted by the noise and responed by calling back. What make strange sounds in the woods is still largely unknown, but with soundblasting method, we may also find out what animal will vocalise outside their normal vocal range. Mack's "dinosaur" is a complete mystery. The description certainly didn't fit the typical cadborosaurus'. What Mack described was more like a plesiosaur. I will not doubt the words by Mack, but here is another cryptid waiting to be researched.
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Aug 12, 2007 18:54:01 GMT -5
BH that is interesting about numbers tracking. Sightings however is a very inexact way to count them, the professional way is to make a grid, take a sample area or a few sample areas and count scat. And that then becomes a very work-intensive thing.
DidnĀ“t I read somewhere that the Chehalis band in the old days would have a contact person familiar with the sasquatch who would go to the same location, beat a log in a rythmic manner and sing a special song to call them (always the same song and pattern)? He then would trade items with the sasquatch people. Where did I read that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2007 23:53:49 GMT -5
We would first have to learn to differentiate sasquatch scat from other crap. Then we would have to know how many BMs they have a day. Good luck!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2007 10:59:28 GMT -5
hi novicebutbeliever,
the whole sasquatch "mystery" and the lack of organization (or better yet, lack of information sharing, which I understand why) between research groups is what I think is the downfall in coming to clear concrete evidence of the existence of sasquatch.
It reminds me of the jack the ripper killings, the metro police and the london police lack of organization and not cooperating with each other, and also the night stalker murder case where the l.a police werent sharing their info with the san francisco police dept because their egos and they wanted to get the bad guy, but murders could of been avoided if they would of. Now with the zodiac killings the san fran police, manhattan beach police dept, the vallejo polilce dept, the fbi, journalists and cia, started just as disorganized as the others but it is the zodiac who was the first multi-jurisdictional police investigation in California. Before this case, there was no organized effort between departments as a rule. This is how I kind of perceive the many different research groups out there. If we could do what they did in the Zodiac case and become "multi-jurisdictional" I think in a perfect world where we didnt have such easily chatterable egos, we could if we all cooperated, come to some without a doubt conclusive insasquatchnating evidence. But like I said, in a perfect world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2007 4:52:13 GMT -5
Soundblasting does sound promising if you know what to broadcast. I think the recorded material I have heard sounds belligerent. I have heard that the Sas people did historically trade with other peoples. Apparently, and this is speculative, the Sasquatch were infected with Small Pox upon the arrival of Europeans. Trade stopped,then. The Sas were said to speak a few words of Skookum, an old trade pidgin. The major trade events of the pre-Columbian era took place at the rapids on the Fraser and Columbia rivers (other places,too) where the seagoing peoples would trade with the mountain dwellers. There is a story in our tradition that tells of a trader on his way to 'market' waylaid by a Sasquatch. The man is carrying a hundred dried salmon. The Sasquatch tries several ploys only to be thwarted by the wily trader. Finally the man tells the Sas that he has nothing the man wants. The Sas agrees that this is so but adds that he is very hungry and isn't it too bad that there are only two foodstuffs in the valley.Try the fish! the man replied.
|
|