Every hunter will tell you that animals have an awareness of danger that is above and beyond our own and seems esp-like. Case in point: when hiking I can pass within a couple of yards of deer. They turn, look at me, and walk on. I once woke early and went to sit on a hillside to watch the sunrise. Around me a herd of deer gathered, feeding. I could have reached out and touched one. Certainly if I wanted to I could have jumped on one and knifed it, they were so close. But when I walk with my bow, and yes, it is properly silenced, I see far fewer game animals. I can hear them going around me in the bush. The only way to hunt successfully is to hide so well (for example, a tree stand) that the animals do not realize you're there at all. Why should BF be any different.

Hey,
Brand new here and this forum is huge and I can't seem to find anything on live streaming video. I live in NYC and don't get out into the woods often. Are there any web cams set up on some of the latest hot spots or on expeditions?

Sorry chum, no live streaming video here. Posting, postulating, pontificating, procrastinating and peevish behaviour yes, but streaming video, not so much.

Thanks Rounder, my search doesn't seem to be working correctly and this forum is vast.
Wouldn't it make sense for the larger organizations (BFRO) to set up a network during their expeditions? I've read a lot about trail cams but no wireless web cams. If the cams were placed in great locations, like areas of numerous sightings, I would pay for a membership and I'm sure the legions of members of various BF forums would too. The system would be paid for through membership and there would be tens of thousands of pairs of eyes looking for the big guy/gal. I'm sure it has been discussed somewhere but if it hasn't and this is the first and a BF is seen through this process, you have to name the first one Mike.

Ok, Mike it is. Mind if I ask, why Mike?

A couple of years ago, wasn't there some woman doing this? If I remember right, she did have cameras set up in the woods that people could monitor live. Danged if I can remember her name or even any good key words to search for though, but I'm positive there's at least one thread on this forum about it. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

Thom Powell with BFRO support tried the wireless webcams in Wash. or Oregon area and ran into a lot of technical difficulties
battery life being one among them, there is an internet link to that experiment with assoc. pics somewhere on this forum or that
of bfro.

All technical issues can be overcome. Most television programs on the subject contain a segment showing numerous cameras patched into computers at a base station. If this was done on a regular bases, there is no reason why it cannot be linked into the web. I think it's more a question of notoriety after the discovery. They put in the time, money and effort, and a person sitting at home should not make a finding before them. I guess. Anyways, they're missing out on a great source of revenue and an increasing chance of discovery by ten fold.

Here is the link to that setup:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=175
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/tp/ww.asp

That's great stuff ^^^^, thanks for posting the link.

Those shadow images from 12/30/01 would encourage me to try again and digital camera's have improved so much since. I hope they give it another shot someday soon.

I'd like to help but I think I intentionally scrubbed that one from my memory.

Was it bad? I never paid much attention to it, just remember it being here somewhere.

As gifted an animal as a sasquatch is, he/she is still an animal. Their hunger and quest for food probably overcomes most of their natural instinct to remain concealed. I guess my point is; a hungry sasquatch may expose him/herself to detection when it's quest for food overwhelms it's desire to remain cloaked. I do believe with a lot of luck and proper bait, good video or pictures can be obtained eventually. Of course pictures and video alone won't convince most skeptics. I believe sasquatch is also a curious animal and it has and will approach human activity, especially when there is a scent of food in the air. I personally do not believe it can sense electronics such as trail cameras, but that is only my opinion. I think with patience and luck, sasquatch can be lured into a photographic situation that is much more clear than the famous blobsquatches that we've all seen.

I've never looked for sasquatch, but I do live in the Seattle area and plan to do a little research on my own when the weather gets warmer. I did cancel my planned attendance at BFRO expedition when I EVENTUALLY found out that firearms ARE forbidden. Don't make me get on my 2nd amendment soap box. My desire was to bring a pistol for safety reasons, not for hunting the elusive sasquatch. I don't believe stomping around in the forest unarmed is a good idea, just my opinion. I also don't believe in killing one just to prove they exist. Now capturing one is another story. Not that it will ever be done in my lifetime, but who knows.

If these creatures do exist, and I believe they do, they've been around for hundreds of years (if not thousands). We've only been seriously looking to prove their existence for a short period of time (since the 50's?). Relatively speaking, we've just begun to look. Persistence coupled with technology will perhaps solve this mystery once and for all. They are just animals, very intelligent and very illusive for sure. The forest is their "backyard" and we are the visiting team of pink, sometimes silly, not so hairy animals that seek them out in our own clumsy way.

Persistence and luck. Keep up the search!

Hello all, newbie poster,happy to have found the site.

I have not read all the posts here so forgive me if this has already discussed.

Anyone know anything about RFID's? Are there any strong enough to be detected from miles away that are small enough to be placed in food items? Place the food high enough that only Sassy can reach it, hopefully it gets eaten then tracking is possible. At the very least you would find the scat with the RFID in it to test. Any thoughts?

I'm a novice with this RFID stuff, can you elaborate some, then maybe someone can find a thread to point you to?

Hi

Welcome

Best thing to do is go to the new member thread and let everyone know who you are that way we know who were talking with

There might be a thread about the coded chips around here

Peace

Tim

RFID's are radio transmitter units that are usually very small in size. The are used to track consumer goods, etc. I am no expert either, just had the idea that if there were strong enough small ones that could be ingested, it may be a way for researchers to find a Squatch. I am sure I cannot be the first to think of this so I was wondering what others may have come up with concerning this technology.

Hi

Check out this site, it might be a bit of a challenge to get a BF to swallow one, Or even find one for that matter

http://sitetest.atstrack.com/ats/products/...ransmitter.aspx

Peace
Tim

yeah, those have antenna's. Wonder if they have one akin to those locater chips they put in pets ears (at least I thought those existed). Those would be small enough to put into a food item one might hope a big fella would just swallow without chewing. You would probably have to load a cache of food up with a large amount of them hoping one would get swallowed without being damaged. I am not in a "Bigfoot Area" so even if the units that I am imagining exist I wouldn't be testing them anytime soon. Just putting the thought out there on the remote chance it hadn't been thought of.

Hi

I did some searching around and those were about the smallest i could find that Transmit a signal, it is a good idea for sure,

Let me add the smallest we could get, The Goverment has ones that could be used, There as small as a dime

Peace
Tim

I know this one may be unpopular but what about a cache of food heavily poisoned positioned so only a BF could reach it. You would put poison warning signs all over it to prevent a human from eating it. Periodically check the cache and when/if it gets eaten, scour the area with tracking dogs to find the carcass.

Hi


OOP'S


Peace
Tim

yeah I know the nuclear trigger is stored separately from the rest of the bomb, ....... sure

Tim the one for the bats looks small enough to be ingested by a bigfoot......you choose the menu and timelines, if they can't be ingested, maybe
someone can mount them to a remote controlled predator minimodel and fly live right to a critter that has already been located? I don't ask for much,
or better yet come up with an army of bigfoot licensed transmitting live bat predators and Bruce Wayne will help lead us to the hideaway to get ready, the hairier
the bigfoot the better the inextricable tangle.

It would seem to me that:

1) Any device small enough to be swallowed would not have much of a range. You would probably have to be fairly close to get the signal.

2) Big problem with having one that is swallowed is that food passed fairly quickly through the body. By the time you got close enough to the device to pick up the signal, it will probably only be a pile on the forest floor.

Build a bioclone cyborg chip with spirochete possibility of lodging in the intestinal tract like a parasite,
so that sucker won't let go after many trips to the throne then.

That sounds painful!

The big fella doesn't have to go for the bait, but hey it's better than an elephant gun to learn about the creatures habits
and migratory routes, but yeah it could cause some mild discomfort

BTW I should have said bioengineer such a device, don't know if anything is even possible like that, but someday?

2) Big problem with having one that is swallowed is that food passed fairly quickly through the body. By the time you got close enough to the device to pick up the signal, it will probably only be a pile on the forest floor.

Thats not a problem, thats evidence!!!!

Hi

How about this idea got for the Monty Python boys,


It's called Spring Surprise, A Candy Covered in darkest, velvety-smooth chocolate, when you pop it into your mouth, stainless steel bolts spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks."

That ought to hold the transmitter in there

Peace
Tim

Lots of great ideas in this thread about researching bf. Unfortunately, the definitive evidence will likely not be discovered by a bf researcher. It will be discovered by happen chance by someone being in the right place at the right time. Probably by a hunter who misidentifies or hit by a car. I think the best thing that we can do is keep our eyes and ears open. Talk to people who spend a lot of times in the woods and conduct the activities discussed in this thread. Just my thoughts.

Not really. It would only be evidence if it was FIRST proven that is WAS a BF that ate it to begin with. If you had THAT proof, you wouldn't need the other.

It seems like a fruitful line of investigation would be to distribute to BF orgs and investigators, vials with EDTA DNA preservative along with tweezers, swaps etc.

As for finding a DNA specimen, previous suggestions on this board about looking for buzzards are good. Another one is aerial or mountainside surveillance with far infrared sensors. Detection of body temperature emissions requires cryogenically cooled sensors in the 10 micron region. I have used gold-doped germanium detectors for far infrared laser research in the 10.6 micron region. They require liquid nitrogen cooling. Liquid helium is even better but is too expensive. Obviously we are talking about a major effort here but it is doable even for a small organization. Elimination of false alarms from other animals would be a big issue. Moisture in the atmosphere would limit range except on cold clear nights. Liquid nitrogen is readily transported in Dewar containers for long distances and for substantial times. Dry ice cooling can be substituted with loss of sensitivity. A one km range seems readily doable, much more with good cooling and a clear night.

Simply having DNA preservative readily in the hands of investigators would be a good advance with or without infrared search.

All these suggestions are fairly obvious, but no one seems to be doing them.

Someone mentioned a RADAR device that detects movement. Yes they do exist. They basically work like a police speed monitor. Inside they have a Gunn diode, a simple directional coupler, and diode detector to detect the heterodyne between the outgoing signal and the return Doppler shifted signal. I have built them myself and they are very easy to do.

A police speed monitor could be modified to work for Bigfoot by changing the low pass cutoff filter to detect low speeds. This is easy to do in most cases. A longer range than a 1/4 mile or so requires a bigger antenna horn. By the time you do all this you might as well build it from scratch. I'm tempted to try doing this but I'm tied up with a home generator project at the moment. In any case there might be more fruitful things to do Sasquatch-wise. I think that DNA is the way to go. Of course an autodyne RADAR could be a good supporting tool for that, perhaps better than thermal detectors.

Bye the way, I looked at the paper on DNA extraction from hair. Here are the salient results not mentioned in the abstract. It works best on caucasion hair, about 4 out of 5 times. On African hair it works about half the time. This suggests that on BF hair it would work about the same as the more primordial type hair, about half the time.

A confounding issue is that for caucasions, it worked much less successfully for red hair. Some BF are reported to have red hair. Still overall, the technique is worth trying. As mentioned in the abstract, it only has been used for mitochondrial DNA. Autosomal DNA has not been tried. Mitochondrial DNA would suffice for classifying BF on the phylogenetic tree, but it doesn't give much info other than metabolism for anything else. For the other characteristics autosomal DNA is required.

Probably Dr. F has already read that paper and might already be trying it. That leads me to speculate that we might be seeing a solid scientific publication from either him or someone else in the near future. Let's hope this whole area is going to break wide open in the near future. Scientists tend to keep quiet about results in progress because it could jeopardize publication and/or be premature.

is anyone keeping track of DNA test results that have come back inconclusive so that they can be compared to other tests with similar findings?