Here's something I've been wondering about. After reading the latest sighting report on the BFRO, in which a BF is witnessed pawing at the recently poured plaster in a BF track (possibly its own?) in an area of continuing activity, I've come to this hypothesis: We all know how BF's are incredibly camera shy, and painfully so, as is well documented. There has been some banter on how they may perceive a camera as a soul stealing device, similar to how the attitudes of some primitive african cultures have been explained. Imagine this: If a BF was hiding in the shadows and secretly observing after an encounter with humans (researchers with plaster, specifically), and then noticed the attention those researchers were paying to its footprints (applying the plaster), might they think of plaster also as a similar intrusive device? A "Soul Stealer" as previously mentioned? Assuming that these critters have the intelligence to think to this extent, which I totally believe they do, I can see why these creatures seem to do everything possible to hide their tracks, or restrict their footing as much as possible to rocky/hard ground so as to not leave tracks.

There have been many comments on how BF's may realize that the tracks they leave behind may draw the attention of humans. What do you think a BF would ponder if it saw fresh plaster being applied to one of its footprints? I think an association is possible. What say you?

I think Bf grew up alongside us, and learned who the top predator was the hard way. They probably watched as humans follow tracks of Sas and other creatures. After watching Humans take down a Mastadon or two, BF knew that is one animal NOT to mess with.

Covering tracks does not seem to far fetched.

GG,

First I want to comment regarding cameras and bigfoot souls. I believe that any creature capable of this kind of cognizant thinking would have to have some sort of relatively indepth cultural awareness and a conceptual thinking ability that is capapble of forming theoretical or philisophical rationales. I don't think there's any evidence to support that.

Either that, or bigfoot has some instinctive belief that his spirit is some kind of separate entity that resides within his physical being. That would be instinct, not rationale.

I do believe that bigfoot is very intelligent relative to other animal species but I wouldn't go so far as to assume that a sas can guess that a camera captures an image. That's the only reason certain indigenous tribes came up with the "soul" fear - their perfect image was transposed onto paper, possibly "relocating" their presence from point A to point B. In other words, "where does my soul now reside?"

I don't think that bigfoot has any clue what a camera is. And even if it did, I don't believe that that they have the kind of intellectual development to associate the click of a camera with the possible displacement of their soul (if they could even concieve of the souls existence).

With regard to the plaster casts I think a sas would absolutely be aware that the cast was related to human interest. What I'm curious about is how the sas in the Ohio report was actually poking at the cast material. He/she wanted to know what the texture of the material was - that action implies a deeper level of thought - where the sas will form an opinion based on the texture experiment.

A couple of other things about this report struck me as somewhat unique. Typically daylight sightings around dwellings are extremely rare. In this case not only one, but two creatures revealed themselves. Also, typically when people have moved into proximity of a sas to investigate the creature makes a hasty retreat. In this instance a sas remained within a very close range in broad daylight (30 yards?) after an initial search was conducted. I'm not refuting the account, just pointing out what I think are rare or unique circumstances.

I haven't read the report yet, but I'll weigh in and say it's always been my opinion that what sas are aware enough to understand is that guns hurt (either by watching hunters, being shot or shot at, etc.). I always assumed they didn't differentiate between guns and cameras and if they are camera shy to the point of hiding if they see one, it's because they're trying not to get shot.

As for the poking at the wet plaster, and once again understand I haven't read the report, this is behavior I'd expect from any primate. They've possibly just watched one of us pour some odd goo totally unlike anything else in its environment onto the ground (maybe it knows it was one of its own tracks) and it's curious. I be curious.

Anyway, that's my two bits...

Shorebreak-

I totally agree with your comments regarding the sighting in discussion. While I do believe that daytime sightings around homesteads are rare indeed, I also think that these kinds of encounters are on the increase. I think that BF's are getting more accustomed to human dwellings and activities, and that their shyness in such cases may be slowly waning. If the report is genuine, then this idea would seem to be true.

About the actual "Soul Stealing" premise. I'm not necessarily saying that a BF connects the "soul" with a camera, but I do think they have culture and have a rationality far beyond anything else in the animal kingdom, excluding humans. I also think that they can perceive danger much like humans do before it happens. That "hair standing on end" response.....

I also think that some BF's (those with numerous human encounters) may indeed know that a camera will do them no good, and that it is to be avoided, even though they may not understand just what the camera does. I wonder how gorillas in captivity think when they see images of other gorillas?

Excellent points, Bipto!

Guns/cameras/rightguard...... all bad bad bad

Well, if we're going to go so far as to accept the possibility that a Sasquatch can understand the idea of a 'soul', are we then not obligated to accept the possiblity that a Sasquatch has a belief in some kind of 'God' or supreme being? Are we also going to accept the possiblity that a Sasquatch can understand an afterlife, where their 'souls' go when they die? This opens up a whole new avenue of query, that is IF we are to accept these possibilities in the first place. I for one believe that if the Sasquatch were able to comprehend the idea of having a 'soul', then this would have been reflected by some form of documented spiritual record, either through primitive yet recognizable figural glyphs, or some other form of unexplainable primitive and/or abstract symbolic icons which are located in their purported habitats.

I can se the relation between the camera and a gun. Like Bipto said, they probably have seen enough of hunters to possibly recognize a gun. Or of anything they learned that anytime a human puts a strange contraption up to their face, it is usually followed by a loud bang and a resulting dead animal,

It would be tough to guess what sasquatch learns from his parents, learns from experience, and what he's actually capable of learning given the opportunity (like an isolated pygmy tribe, doubtful they know anything about algebra, but certainly capable of learning it). To understand the concept of 'soul' wouldn't sasquatch need to attend religious services as a kid?

I agree with GG that BF's have a relatively high level of intellect compared with other species and they do demonstrate some cultural traits. In this case however, I think the simplest explanation is the most acceptable. As Bipto said, fear and simple curiosity.

As far as the "soul" concept goes however, what if we were to simplify "soul" to mean a basic comprehension of "self". Do BF recognize themselves as individuals? If one looked in a mirror would he recognize him"self". Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the only species capable of self-recognition are humans, dolphins and some great apes (Bigfeet?).

(Not trying to go off on a tangent here. )

SABRE- Exactly.

I wasn't trying to imply that BF's are bible-thumping beasts that go to church on Sundays. I was implying that they have some sort of self-awareness and recognition that shows they are highly intelligent creatures. The greater the intelligence, the more they learn from experience and knowledge that's handed down through generations. The more generations that go by, the greater the knowledge base, and more is learned.

Do they bury their dead? Some would argue that. If they did, that would imply a few things. They either do it to get rid of the scent of rotting meat so as to not attract attention, or they do it because there is some sort of culture associated with it.

The fact is that no one knows conclusively why a Sasquatch would avoid a camera. Is it because of an association with firearms? Maybe. Is it an association with the camera as a 'soul stealing' device? Highly unlikely, but not totally beyond the pale. This doesn't mean that either theory is wrong, just that one theory may hold more merit than the other. There are no proven theorems when it comes to this subject. Actually, I haven't seen any solid evidence to convince me either way, so in the end, it all boils down to pure speculation. So far, I haven't seen any evidence(other than pure speculation) which would lend any credence to the theory in which a Sasquatch can understand the idea of a 'soul'. All we have to go on is the behavior which we have witnessed in other animals, none of which have the intelligence to understand the idea of a 'soul'. We humans seem to be unique in this class. If we are to stay within the realm of proveable science, then the only way a Sasquatch would be able to know anything about a 'soul' would be through learned behavior. This would be a very complex issue and would require the use of speech or some other form communication involving complex symbolism. There has been no recorded evidence of this, and since no one has documented the everyday life of the Sasquatch, in-depth or otherwise, then all we can do is speculate.

Umm... is there actually any evidence that Bigfoot avoids cameras specifically? Isn't it more that they avoid humans in general, with or without cameras?

I thought the 'camera avoidance' thing was one of Mary Green's yarns explaining why, despite the fact that she had to shoo a dozen Bigfoot out of her barn every morning, she could produce no photographic evidence at all...


-robo

I agree.

I will go one farther and say that I think that they do not know a camera from a coffeemaker. Personally, I don't buy the *camera shy* idea..

But would they know that a coffee maker makes coffee?

Hmm. I'm not sure where I developed it, but somewhere along the way I formed the opinion they were skittish around our 'stuff' - guns, cameras, gamecams, etc. It would help to explain our lack of good photos...

[QUOTE][CODE]

Yes, it would, but so would the ideas of he who must not be mentioned in polite company. As always, my personal approach is "give me enough evidence, and I'll give you the answer." And I ain't even all that smart!

-Vern

May as well comment . . .

A friend of mine, whom I’ve done most of my fieldwork with, but haven’t gotten out with lately due to his surgery earlier in the year, has been trying to film sasquatches for around eight years now. It’s personal for him; he just wants to prove it can be done. He’s tried setting out mounted cameras when he’s camping, but he’s also rigged a camcorder to sit outside his van in a little housing. It’s controlled via another camcorder inside the van, and cam be rotated around to cover all angles of the van, save for one corner. He’s tried aiming it up a trail in an area they seem to show up in (it was in this spot that I saw that greenish white eyeshine). Now, one of these times, he ended up falling asleep. He woke up after hearing some noises, and realized the camera had been rotated to face away from the trail—the mechanism is pretty sticky, this is not something it would have done on its own. Because of power issues, the setup is only run when he’s awake and in control of it, as it really sucks up a lot of juice. So, the camcorder was off when turned.

I’m aware of one or two times with mounted cameras, were it looked like something was playing with the IR illuminator, casting shadows, but going in front of the lens. Yes, one of these was at Thom Powell’s Chehalis site (Tug posted a link a while back that leads to some blobby images); the other was somewhere else, and this I haven’t personally seen the images from, so can’t offer any comment on.

Definite stuff? No.

Weird quasi-pattern? Could be.

Briefly, some pure speculation. I could very easily be wrong, and I can like with that. Other social animals will interpret a camera lens a big eye. I’ve pointed this out to a couple folks, as it possible carries over to the sasquatches. Now maybe, just maybe, the sasquatches take this farther. They don’t seem thrilled with humans looking at them, and if humans are setting up bizarre, disembodied, eye-looking things out in the wilderness, the watching sasquatches could be using some conceptual reasoning to connect the dots.

Like I said, pure speculation. The odds I’m wrong are pretty good.

Do I think it’s impossible to get a sasquatch pic with a remote camera? No, it’s just really, really hard.

It takes more time in the woods, but I honestly believe taking a picture is just more likely to succeed with a hand-held camera or camcorder than a mounted one. Remember, I’m just going from my limited observations of other researchers failing horribly with remote cameras. A mounted camera they can move around and avoid—that’s trickier with a hand held, because hopefully the person controlling it is panning to follow and not frozen in fear . . . Which I have heard of; the poor person feels so bad afterwards, not only because the experience in of itself was bad, but because they’ll beat themselves up for not taking that photo.

I honestly don’t carry a camera into the woods myself. I’m aiming for close-range behavioral observations that could help others with there photographic endeavors. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that trying to snap my own pictures will hinder me in that, or maybe I’m right. But I’m not going to underestimate them.


Just my two cents . . . Might be right, my be wrong, this is just where I am now.
Alicia

(edited for minor details)

I have read that smaller cats scrape at the ground to cover their bodily waste, so that larger predators won't smell it, & find them. (Much as a housecat does). But, with BF already smelling so rank, this may not be as likely for the plaster inspection, as simple curiosity. (Maybe it's time to leave a small cam in a footprint, & pour a little plaster around it?)

I'm not sure if i buy the 'big eye' theory, especially since many cheaper cameras have a very small, hardly noticeable lens, and you have to see the camera at fairly close range to clearly resolve the 'lens' and make a lens-eye connection, at which point a game cam would likely have snapped your picture.
Has anyone tried placing a game came inside a housing, perhaps a box with mirrored glass on the front? That way, there would be no way that the camera could be interpreted as a giant eye. Who knows, it might work.

Personally i'm of the opinion that the Sasquatch just a very rare animal, so the chances of it showing up on a game cam are low compared to other animals. I suspect that the vast majority of game cams are set up by hunters checking out deer populations and such. They are probably mounted too low to get an identifiable bigfoot shot, and probably in the wrong locations for BF. The number of game cams set up for optimum BF photography is probably tiny.

A Bigfoot would have to know what a camera does.

Um...yeah? Short and sweet, eh?

Personally, I don't think they know what a camera's for. JMO.

I agree... the story goes, I believe, that certain natives equated photographs with soul stealing only after seeing the developed plate.

I don't think that a BF, or BF's, have seen any good photos of themselves, I know I haven't.

I know folks have tried housings (I'm pretty sure it was the birdhouse camera hide that got the blurry pics at the Chehalis) and camouflage, and people have tossed around the idea of using mirrored glass—not only with the hope that the critters wouldn’t see the camera, but also that they would be intrigued by their reflections. I honestly don’t know if anyone’s tried this. The only really turn-off I can see is that shinny things in the woods would attract other animals, from corvids to humans . . . So, it’d be something for a homestead situation, as that would at least provide minimal security against anyone who might steal equipment.

But I admit it, cameras and everything that goes along with them really aren't my forte.


Alicia

I understand that on smallfoot forums, there are several sasquatch who do post lots pictures of blobmen. They wonder if smallfoots think their souls will be stolen by the camera.

But, they keep kicking out a squatch who keeps posting about a face coming out of the side of someone's head.

Maybe they just have a problem with somebody stealing their "sole".

*GROAN*

Maybe they took Yearbook as Sasquatch High?

As I recall, the Chehalis site was supposed to be a hot bed of activity, but as soon as a camera was installed in a location, the activity vanished. The most Thom ever get, AFAIK, was a shadow thrown against the trees of a figure that was definately humanioid. They also had what appeared to be deliberate sabotage of equipemtn, presumably by these creatures.

Now there's a few explanations I can think of:

1) It was all BS, and there was never any BF activity at all. I personally don't believe this.

2) BF is able to see in the near infra-red, which is the kind of illumination these night cameras use. They might as well use a bright white spotlight in that case. Even so, witnesses regularly see BF stood 'under a lampost', or out in the open illumination, so why are they avoiding cameras ?

3) BF hair/fur is thick enough that it doesn't trigger off passive infra-red detectors on camtracker type cameras, which detect body heat moving.

4) BF can smell human scent on the camera equipment, and so avoids it.

5) The 'looks a bit like a gun' theory. I once had a dog that knew what a gun looked like, and what it was for, even though we don't have guns here. If you pointed a finger at the dog - nothing. If you pointed a toy gun at the dog - it went bezerk, teeth bared and absolute hate ! So, animals can know this kind of thing, and can differentiate.

6) BF covertly observes humans installing this equipment, and therefore knows what to avoid.

7) Bf are invisible to cameras/are psychic/aren't real/other crackpot theory

I looked for that recent sighting on BFRO and couldnt find it. Does anyone have a link?

Also, not too long ago, we discovered that our Basset does not like cameras. If he sees that you have one, he takes off running. Before Christmas, my 13 yr. old would be wrapping presents. If the hound started bugging her (as usual) she would just get the camera and set it next to her. He was outa there. We were trying to get a good pic of him the other night (so I could post it in the animal pic thread). We might have gotten one good one. You have to be real sneaky though. He really seems to dislike the flash.

If one gets a pic of Sas then its by Chance.



Maybe they think its a gun being pointed at them!


Belle