ANother poster on PG film mentions whether a spy satellites have or could ever catch a reliable shot of Bigfoot. The short answer is most definately yes but they'd need to be specifically on the hunt for one. Not long ago I googled a map site where actual space photo topographical maps can be viewed and enlarged to very detailed levels. For instance I went to the map of my old childhood neighborhood and located our house then panned in until I could make out quite clearly the house and property as if I was looking at a grainy airial photo from about 1000 ft altitude. Later I did same with a park I used to frequent in NY and found a certain field where a very large well know tree stands alone amid about 10 acres of open grassland. Again I was able to VERY easily make out the entire scene including the benches near the tree and the various walking trails that intersect nearby.

So a very high resoloution spy camera would have no trouble if it was instructed to search and record the fauna of a given area. For certain there are space cameras trained on certain Bigfoot areas because they are in managed timberland where the effects of clearcutting and other managment policies are being studied. My guess is if they find Bigfoot this way it'll be swept under the carpet since it would raise a red flag with regards to timber harvest and the potential habitat destruction of an extremely rare primate. So at least for the time being space shots are the perogitive of other less sympathatic powers.

That was my question Crow. I think there is a vast, unknown source of evidence that has not been fully explored, the Military. Let's face it, they keep things secret out of habit, and I feel there are many more reports than we know about, and perhaps evidence of other kinds as well.

This has all been talked about a few times on these forums.
About the best program I have found related to this is google earth. NASA has one as well that is not to bad but I find the google one better. Then the old of them is terraserver from msn.
Them are the public ones, I am sure the US has much better ones non public.

It seems to me that the quality of satellite photos, particularly in areas that are not a major metropolitan area, or National Park or something of interest, are usually low definition and not able to zoom in for great detail. I've also found that some of the online sources offer better images than others.

All three of these pictures are of the same basic area as examples of what to expect depending on which Satellite Imagery Site you use. These are all FREE sites, and from what I've seen checking PAY sites that give you the pics with watermarks on them, I don't see any benefit compared to the free sites as far as image quality.

This is Harbor, OR

The first image is from "Microsoft Virtual Earth" and in my opinion the worst of the three samples. Small image size, limited zoom capability.

Click to view attachment

The second image is from Microsoft Terraserver...Beware there are 2 Terraserver sites.. one is Free the Microsoft version the other is pay. This image is a little better than the Virtual Earth version, but only in Black and White and the zoom level is still way too little to be able to identify something as small as a bigfoot in perspective.

Click to view attachment

The last image is from Google Earth, also of the same area. Now you can see we're talking a lot better zoom and resolution. Possibly not enough to say for certain it would be a bigfoot, but enough to know that something is there. Not all areas of the globe are at this resolution.. some are considerably lower, and some considerably higher. Either way I would recommend Google Earth as being your best bet.

Click to view attachment

I'm sure the vaunted CIA/DIA satellites can do better than that. I wonder if some CIA analyst somewhere is sitting on a crystal clear pic that is "Top Secret".

Ummm, without getting too specific, the answer to your question is probably not. US Intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from surveilling US territory (course, whether they actually do it or not is another issue). This includes overhead imagery. They do generate imagery from time to time of domestic targets, but normally only for calibration purposes. Besides, overhead assets are way too scarce and costly to operate to "waste" on domestic territory...

I disagree that overhead photography could detect a BF in wooded land. The canopy of the trees would block the view regardless of the resolution. It would be able to detect a BF in the open, but how likely is that?

The problem that I see is that even if you did get a pict of one, from a straight above view, it would be difficult to tell what is was and prove BF vs deer, elk, bear, etc. From that perspective, a photo wouldn't do much good.

17x7

Any satilite focusing in close enough to make out a sasquatch is only watching a small area, If you don't know were to look its isn't much good.

Wouldn't count on them catching Sasquatch, but I would put my faith in a couple of ex mercs armed with infrared and an ability to look up. I believe these sasquatch inhabit giant pines and redwoods.

Oh, come on, guys. Don't you think if bigfoot is smart enough to avoid a game camera he would be smart enough to avoid a satellite?

Interessting Topic!

I also thought about this possibility some time ago. What I found out is that a battlefield surveillance plane (maybe ASTOR), would be a much better joice. From above (service seilling 15000 meters) you can check quiete big areas, in a resolution of 1 foot (maybe even less if you fly deeper and tune the hard- and software).


The advantages:
-the aircraft is cheaper to operate
-the aircraft is much more felxible. Satelites have usualy limited steering fuel (=lifespan), so they either make one pic every time they pass during their orbital run, or they are stationed, where you would have to launch a whole satelite for this operation. (or buy a old russian one still in orbit, )
-the radar system of the aircraft generates higher resolution.
-You could use the planes to fly the whole team to actual hotspots.
-You woudn´t need a big ground base, as satelites need to process the data.

The drawbacks:
-I´am not 100% shure but I think the radar images in the Astor aren´t coulor images. You would probably observe lots of hunters even if they wear orange.


To make the "high surveillance" attemp work, you would also need some kind of coast guard aircraft. This craft could be send out to opticaly (usual, IR and thermal) identify the targets locked by the ASTOR or satelite. As this planes can fly quite high to obtain good footage or pictures, the BF wouldn´t "notice" it as a threat, while beeing observed. Also a special skydiving group could be released near the subjects. (Basically you need the "coast guard" aircraft to get footage from a narrower angel. The pictures of the ASTOR, or a satelite, are more or less straight down, and the resolution is still to low to 100% identify the targets.)

All in all my conclusion was that the "high surveillance" approach woudn´t be more effective than spending the money for the simple approach of researcher groups on the ground with thermal- and tele-optics (plus maybe a blimb and some helicopter flights). Although I never calculated any costs for such a project the "high surveillance" plan would be in the hundrets of million dollar range, I think.

The biggest problem in this approach is the final identification of the subject. Without a ultra fast reaction group, it isn´t more than a fast sighting report, even worse because of the poor identification first made by the radars. Adding BF lifing under the hiding canopy of the forests, and nocturnal lifestyle (relativily deep identification flights in the mountains?, skydiving?), it seems to show one more time that technology not always overcomes nature by simple bulk. But it also shows that mankind can overcome nature in this case, simply because we are part of nature and intelligent. Researchers in the field with effective choosen tech for support. Although I hoped of another outcome, I no more support this approach. Maybe someone can hock me up again to it, also maybe some of my data was wrong or has changed.

coments welcome

CU

Gigantor is correct, opitcal or IR imagery is no good in wooded areas. Radar might be. However, radar images are tough to interpret and are most useful to pick out objects of known size and shape. And I am not sure how much of a radar return you would get from a "soft" object like a living creature. Metal and other hard materials work best.

There are a number of misconceptions about overhead imagery being expressed here. Let's just say that they (of whatever nationality) are highly capable.

If you want to do this, UAV's are your best option. Still going to be relatively expensive though...

Optical stuff will work quite well when used in conjunction with 3-D and motion detection...which I think is where it's gonna be at...and DATA hits the nail on the head in my opinion. Platforms designed to identify ever more finely detailed features in order to get the otherguys fighter or the otherguys tiny little robot. The future of war, if we survive it will as it has historically provide us with endlessly fascination technology...and un-immaginable discoveries...at a rate of change humans have yet to ever experience. Gonna be fun.

That´s it dogu you just solved one of the biggest problems in BF photography or filming. By using a 3-D setup, you know the exact distance, combined with the focal lenght you know how big the subject is and also how fast it moves. To advance this idea you could change the lighting settings, so one camera can see better in the dark areas in the background. To measure the high and speed you don´t need a good quality picture, and to verify details you don´t need a 3-D picture. It would also be possible to merge this two pictures and give the picture extra dynamic (from usualy underexposed parts to usualy overexposed parts). Further it would be possible to take one video camera and one thermal. But this would be difficult because you couldn´t use the same optics and kameras.

3-D a over a century old technology. LOL

I think the breakthrough will be hastened when digital photography in the giga-pixel range allows for taking 3-D digital pictures over a really big area, not just in immediate surroundings. I think these nocturnal predators are aware of us over a greater distance than we're giving them credit for and our being there prevents them from acting as they would otherwise, thereby makin' it tough to study their behavior. Once we have that one could eventually set up a good remotely operated camera in a place we know they regulary travel or inhabit.
How would you see your system used in practice in the field?

To take a good (detailed) picture or footage you didn´t need giga-pixel. As you have to get the subject in focus to effektiv use the resolution. This means you must zoom in to get it in precise focus. The focus range (horizon blur) gets smaler the bigger the resolution and/or focal length. To take a ultra high resolution pic and than try to zoom in due to resolution will not work, the outcome are blobsquatches. Blobsquatches with high resolution indeed, but no detail.

My field approach would be to stay in a area for long time (at least one year) with some trailcam systems installed and hundrets of motion detectores to guide the main sight system. Maybe on top of a mountain a base camp with a 3-D optical, military, surveillance unit. Those who are used to visualy identify aircraft at long range. (I think of 10 km). Adding a UAV blimb and real activity in the ovserved area should do the trick. Further the standard items are needed. Hiking groups (at least 2 man, at most 4), luring places, night vision and thermal sights. Camcorders mountaible on the mentioned sights with external microphone headset and manual audio mode. Oh, another idea to advance the standard equipment, would be to mount the sights and directional microphone in someway to the operatores head. As I read to much reports where the wittness simply was to frighten to do anything it would be good if the "sensores" always "look" in the same direction as the wittness. The frighten wittness will always look in the direction of the sounds, or sillouettes or what ever is frightening it. With new tapeless video cameras it is no problem to let your camcorder record in a loop, some 3 to 4 hour loops are possible. Within this timespan also a frighten wittness should be able to react and stop the overwrighting of the footage.

As I read some reports about BF in the desert, should one conclude that they life in the open there?

CU

No institution ,and or independent researcher has the funds to take on such a project ,maybe i"ll find a bear _hit in the woods.Before they find any funding.

That might be wright, but a forum is a creative king of communication. For creative ideas to develope you have to avoid margines in any way possible. To also search in unrealistic sientific fields has the big pro of maybe finding just some small function of this supertech that may can be addopted to the research in an afordable fashion. I just some days ago found a radar tech, used in missiles and other strange stuff, that might can be used to see thru foliage! Who has ever thought smart bomb technology can do this trick?? I´am now looking forward to theoreticaly built up a system for my above mentioned approach. I´am looking forward to a system cost of under 100.000$. The BFRO for example is mentioned to earn around 100.000$ a year with their expeditions, they can be called a kind of institution is this field. If you don´t go further, you will never be more effektive.

CU

As far as aerial reconnaissance scouting for Bigfoot goes, I would propose renting a hot air ballon with an experienced pilot. Hot air ballons are relatively safe and affordable, and you can cruise silently at low altitude and low speed.

The Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas would an ideal choice of an area with reported Bigfoot activity to survey with a hot air ballon.

Conventional hot air balloons can be kinda noisy, and are relatively hard to keep in one position when there's much air movement. But there are in developement lighter than air platforms, some of which may prove servicealbe in the right conditions, but I suspect they'd be prohibitvely expensive right now.
Don't know if you read about the recent incident in Salt Lake City where an experimenter's prototype of a fairly large remote controlled blimp flying over a populated area and maybe a little close to civil airspace cause a bit of a flap. The experimenter, Daniel Geery is someone who might have some excellent ideas.
Here's a link to a brief news video about it and him:
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_164122850.html

Hi, I'll tell my "fresh" ideas..(I'm not an expert on the topic, but anyway, it will sound like a science-fiction story)

I saw in History Channel one program about the Battle of Berlin in 1945. The photos taken by the russian reconnaisance planes were compared and analyzed by experts and they could track the progress of the troops in the battle. They could actually locate their vehicles and platoons. In recent times, all the pictures were sorted again, so they match a satellite topographical map, similar to Google Earth.

That night, I was thinking: there should be some way to track Bigfoot somehow!! He avoids humans and he's a master of stealth, but ¿what about some technologies, if a big, big budget and resources should be available?

1. The technology can be developed and a prototype tested, for example, trying to trace some deers, for example, in a known location.
2. A secret place with intense Bigfoot activity can be chosen. Aerial and satellite photographs can be done constantly as a first approach. Place has to be secret, so any other people won't interfere in the investigation, which has to be very well planned and highly scientifical...
3. Is there any plane that can obtain infrarred photographs, at night? Then big warm bodies like Bigfoot can be detected, for example.
4. A small robot, a silent helicopter or airplane can be used to track further, the creature's lair surroundings, for example.
5. A technology can be developed, some kind of acoustic detector, able to track Bigfoot screams in the night. The source of the scream can be triangulated and the area should be immediately photographed from above.

Is there a radio transmitter, so tiny that Bigfoot can transport with him? I mean, no collars or silly things, he will destroy them immediately. Something really small, an implant maybe, but a very good one.
Then a team of well-trained, brave people has to insert them, to simplify the tracking of the creature (all the other technologies must reassure, that no other Bigfoot will be nearby at this moment, we want a quick operation of special forces, not the Battle of the Planet of the Apes).

Ok, let's dream...

Those are fantastic ideas, and I mean that in both the literal and figurative sense, since we are dreamin' after all.
I think that if we are going to search in heavily wooded areas especially that sort of research and the intense amount of support it would require, sound like the only way to do it.
My own ideal system would use digital video in the gigapixel range, large optical instruments, and be located at a fixed prospect point high above the habitat I'd propose studying, say from a mountain top. In the central Rocky Mountains of the US as in southern Colorado, BF is associated with elk predition. Elk travel into the high countries migrating vertically in elevation, following drainages and yarding up in meadows. I think it's along these edge environments, where open country that support large number of grazing animals, that BF uses the terraine to its advantage, taking advantage of the opportune encounter, using the night as cover hunting nocturnally or crepuscularly. then moving on to another part of its territory. By watching the elk at a distance and over an area that can fully observe the herd, but indisputably undetected and even if detected percieved to be too far away to worry about, I think we'd see some very interesting prey/predator interactions. Consider a fair size grouping of elk of approximately 30 animals. Predition will keep that population stable by annually taking a relatively small number, and once the bounty has been harvested, presume the BF with an act of almost human regard for future hunting condition, moves on to where there is another flush of some resource or another. This might reguire a number of years of observation, but at the end, scientific evidence would be established as to its existence. At the very least we might discover something about natural history previously undetected. It'd be a nice way to spend a few summers in the high country.

I watched another episode of "Planet Earth" today and it struck me that they spent 5 yrs making that series. These are professional wildlife photographers out in the wild for months and years at a time. Like everything else in life, they were successful partly due to natural talent, skill and training. I'm sure technology helped some, but the overwhelming reason for their success? PERSEVERENCE!

Now I don't have time at this point to get out for even a weekend, but I am working to that end. Those of you that do, God bless you. However, to nail down real evidence, in the form of video, pictures or a body, is going to take a concerted effort by someone, or some people who will spend months pursuing the task. That seems to be the recipe for successful wildlife photography.

Although a Predator drone wouldn't hurt!

That´s the reason why I would combine a wildlife documentary with dogu´s approach (or basically every long time approach). By using computer controlled motiontracking etc., you don´t have to observe on your own all the time, so you would have the best basement for a documentary. This documentary might finance the whole thing, and you will have an outcome anyway. Specially if you use such sofisticated technology to observe everything that moves in the end. Today so many documentaries are ploted around the equipment used, and the investigated subject is just a back story.

I think the belief that the greatest reason for skepticism is that we don't have any really good sharp pictures, and so that is what we need, is a little askew. Even a crystal clear video of a BF behaving in it's natural environment will only prompt the skeptics to point out that CGI can do the same thing. If the BF is real, an objective non-biased researcher, following the original researcher's protocols should be able to go to a favorable sight and get a similar results and supporting evidence.
What's missing is an understanding of the animals behavior which thereby makes it difficult to predict. For example; if one believes that the animal is a forest creature because that's where we see them, I would counter that the reason we see 'em in the forest is because that's where their instincts and senses are at their greatest disadvantage, and the sighting is not indicative of its behaviors, so setting up a "hunting" expedition based on that is like going hunting for polar bears in New York City (it is afterall, the sight of the last ice age's terminal moraine). The fact is there have been reports of polar bears who have strayed far south, but to presume that NYC is a sensible place to look for 'em is to disregard why the occasional Polar Bear shows up off the coast of long island...as do the occasional iceberg.
I don't know if this analogy is the best (I have others that might illuminate the arguement better) but my intent is to suggest redirecting the focus of field research from merely trying to get a new and better picture of the quarry, but to get hard physical evidence in context, which will do more than all the new and improved PGF incarnations that any researcher (or CGI lab) could ever produce.
Call blasting, night vision goggles,...sensible strategies if in fact the quarry is hanging around in a relatively small area surrounded by forests and acting predictably for the benefit of our incredibly clumsy attempts to act unobtrusively. But not so good if in fact the sighting area is just coincidental to the BF finding refuge in a forest while it stays out of sight and until the night when it can use its nocturnal senses and pursue its natural instinctual inclinations to seek its prey and travel its territory.

As julio mentioned, radio transmitters. That realy becomes necessary if you are looking for behavioural/territorial research. But simply shooting BF at short range with a dart (shurely hurts), carying the radio transmitter, seems dangerous to me. Also I don´t think a helicopter can be used. If you can track and find BF and show him to credible sientists (credibility in the sientific community), we wouldn´t need a kill.

Right! Credible evidence obviates a requirement to kill...and the best evidence is evidence that is observable, repeatable, and supported by physical data. I don't think that necessarily means radio transmitters, tranquilizer guns, helicopters or even clear photographic evidence. Those could be good tools once the presence of a BF is supported by good evidence, and its hypothetical role in the habitat has been better understood. At that point it would just be a matter of time until scientifically supported photographic evidence, verifiable tracks and even DNA is produced. And who knows, maybe even a body will be discovered...or should I say recognized for what it's worth. I would suggest that even the most experienced back country naturalist when coming across a scavanged body presumes the species based on what it looks like at a reasonable distance. As I once learned myself, if you're in wilderness, and you see a carcass, you don't actually want to get that close just to take a closer look..and a bison or elk rib probably looks a lot like a BF rib to those of us not versed in vertebratate zoological anatomy.
I think an underlying current in my thinking on this is that the creature we're looking-for is simply using its senses as a level that we cannot really understand. Really, what does the world look like to an animal that has 1000 times the sensitivity to smell that we do? It becomes a chemical world, not a visual one...and that really is why the eyesight of a bear isn't any better than it is, nor would it be better off if it were. But they always know where we are and we are never sure exactly where they are. This disparity in how the environment is perecieved could be even greater when considering a crafty nocturnal ape in contrast with us clever diurnal apes.

Data...check out the latest at BFRO regarding a sighting in the desert habitat. This one ocurs within a few ranges of the area of Great Basin with which I'm most familiar and one in which conditions are nearly architypical of the desert I was describing. Did I mention the conditions there can be most excellent for visible sightings though almost nobody lives out there.

Pictures don't help as even those interested in this field chide them, with the exception of the Patterson film. Experts are already interested in this field to include the United States foremost dermal ridge expert Jimmy Chillcutt. In my humble opinion a dead body will cause a stir but will be written off as someone imported an unknown exotic animal and it escaped. Quite possibly someone along the lines of the late Dian Fossey would be the only way this animal will be brought to the publics atttention to the extent it will cause a reasonable stir.

I use google earth alot, they have a new one thats supposed to be first peron viewable now. I usally use it to check out wooded areas that I think might be a good location for bigfoot, or just curious as how far the wooded area goes out. If it has alot of creeks and is not blocked in by man-made stuff its a possible location for research, also BRFO has a goodle earth viewer with reports and sighting already on it. These can really help when finding an area to research in.