104 replies to this topic

[Insanity]

Apologize then, but had not seen it mentioned in this thread to my knowledge.

[Sakari]

Insanity, on 01 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Apologize then, but had not seen it mentioned in this thread to my knowledge.

Was not in this thread....I can not remember the site where it is mentioned though...

Although this has been discussed on this site...Not that it is easy to find......

Wait....here it is.....I shall ask to have it merged.....

http://www.unexplain...pic=205402&st=0

By the way, welcome to UM !

Good to see you catch things like that, keep it up!

[Insanity]

Awesome, the threads merged as I was replying.

Well, I hadn't been searching on this particular Vermont image to find a thread to join in, just joined in when I did.  It is certainly old news then.

I see in the other thread you had questioned the temperature as well, I had looked at the temperature for the area that date at 5:55pm, and seemed plausible.  But not for at midnight which was either 70, or just a bit below.  Which does match the times and temps on the coyote frames.

From that thread there is a link.
http://www.squatchde.../VtTrailCam.htm

Does state the camera was a Moultrie and had a long shutter delay of 1/6 seconds, causing the motion blur.
**edit**
Judging by the position and 'font' of the timestamp and temperature, wonder if it was the Moultrie Gamespy I40?
http://www.trailcamp...oultriei40.aspx

Also seems that Moultrie's 'multishot' is not the same as other's burst. Moultrie's multi-shot takes photos at 13s intervals rather then the quick succession other model may do.

I think you had mentioned in that thread that it seemed the camera had been moved from the coyote photos to the Sasquatch, I am not sure if I agree with that.  The edge of the road is in the same relative position from the coyote to the Sasquatch frame, but the few pine branches in the frame to move, perhaps wind?

Here are two images showing this, the first one is the reference coyote frame, the other is the coyote frame with the Sasquatch frame over it at 65% opacity, and the road edge is in the same place, but the branches are not.


It a fairly minor thing in comparison to the rest of what is questionable about it, and certainly lends nothing to what is in the frame.

Edited by Insanity, 01 December 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[DieChecker]

Sakari, on 01 December 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

Isn't it odd that trail cam pictures of every other thing turn out clear?.....Even very rare animals?

Sakari, on 30 November 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

Here is the third pic....to hard to resize these with the limitations of the site....3rd was to small to post with other two.

SUNP0003.JPG

But your own pics are not so blur-free are they Sakari?

Sakari, on 01 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Anyway, my experience is most, if not all trail cams used out there are the higher priced ones. Hunters do not like to use cheap equipment, and they want it to work well. Same as you do not see many people using cheaper cell phones over iphones and the like.

But bigfoot hunters are not "most" hunters. Many basically are using throwaway cameras. Just my opinion.

I do agree that this is a ghillie suit though.

[Sakari]

DieChecker, on 02 December 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

But your own pics are not so blur-free are they Sakari?


But bigfoot hunters are not "most" hunters. Many basically are using throwaway cameras. Just my opinion.

I do agree that this is a ghillie suit though.

If a subject is moving fairly fast, they are blurry.....But, still identifiable......I have a lot of other ones that are worse, and a lot that are better.

I was refering to Elk / Bear / Deer ( hell, rednecks ) hunters I know of, and ones I read about.



Ted Nugent would have shot a bigfoot by now anyways.

[DieChecker]

Heh, heh. Just teasing you...

I tend to agree that one should have been shot by now.

[keninsc]

Hmmmmmm? Apparently, in Vermont, it gets dark pretty early, huh?

I mean the time index clearly shows 5:55 PM......that's evening. And oddly it's the same level of darkness as the top one taken at 11:17 PM.

Anyone else notice this?

[Night Walker]

Well spotted, Ken.

According to this site - sunset on the 2nd of Sept, 2010, in Montpelier, Vermont, was 7.25pm. "Bigfoot" raiding apples in the dark 90 minutes before the sun went down, eh?

Curiouser and curiouser...

Edited by Night Walker, 03 December 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[Night Walker]

Night Walker, on 03 December 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

According to this site - sunset on the 2nd of Sept, 2010, in Montpelier, Vermont, was 7.25pm. "Bigfoot" raiding apples in the dark 90 minutes before the sun went down, eh?

Correction: Just checked the original post which claimed that the timestamp was off by 6hrs 7mins making the resulting picture being taken at 12:03am the next day. That also, then, changes the final coyote pic stamped at 11:47pm to 5:54am - 18 minutes before sunrise.

If I'm up at that ungodly hour (5:54am) I am not very aware of my surroundings. My question to early risers and/or camera buffs: Are the light conditions 18 minutes before the sun peaks over the horizon similar to that of midnight? If not, would differences show up on an IR camera?

Edited by Night Walker, 03 December 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[Insanity]

Night Walker, on 03 December 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Correction: Just checked the original post which claimed that the timestamp was off by 6hrs 7mins making the resulting picture being taken at 12:03am the next day. That also, then, changes the final coyote pic stamped at 11:47pm to 5:54am - 18 minutes before sunrise.

If I'm up at that ungodly hour (5:54am) I am not very aware of my surroundings. My question to early risers and/or camera buffs: Are the light conditions 18 minutes before the sun peaks over the horizon similar to that of midnight? If not, would differences show up on an IR camera?

At dawn, it is possible to see enough sunlight to know in which direction the sun is, without it being above the horizon.  In astronomical terms, dawn is when the sky is no longer completely dark, and this occurs when the sun is 18° below the horizon or higher during the mornings.

At Montpelier, Vermont from 8/30/10 to 9/2/10, the sun was at 18° below the horizon at roughly 4:20AM to 4:30AM, and at 5:50AM it was at about 4.5° to 5.0° below horizon.  I would have to surmised there was enough light in the sky to be able to see without any other sources at 5:54AM.

Edited by Insanity, 03 December 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[Night Walker]

Insanity, on 03 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

At dawn, it is possible to see enough sunlight to know in which direction the sun is, without it being above the horizon.  In astronomical terms, dawn is when the sky is no longer completely dark, and this occurs when the sun is 18° below the horizon or higher during the mornings.

At Montpelier, Vermont from 8/30/10 to 9/2/10, the sun was at 18° below the horizon at roughly 4:20AM to 4:30AM, and at 5:50AM it was at about 4.5° to 5.0° below horizon.  I would have to surmised there was enough light in the sky to be able to see without any other sources at 5:54AM.

Thanks for that.



There appears to be no difference in light conditions between the two shots - that shouldn't be the case. Also, the "Bigfoot" pic appears slightly out of focus in comparison (making the identification process just that little bit more difficult) - should that be the case?

Originally, I was thinking this was just a case of mistaken identity - the pic being that of one owl which had been sitting on the pole caught in the act of dropping down to a second owl on the ground with wings extended (possibly protecting its meal):




https://www.facebook..._count=1&ref=nf

If misidentification, why tamper with the film? Shouldn't there be more pics in the sequence? Is there any way of telling if some have been removed? What's with the number "5555555555" next to the timestamps? Shouldn't these numbers go up in sequence?

Could it be misidentification + tampering? This is the World of Bigfoot, after all...

[Insanity]

Night Walker, on 03 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Thanks for that.

There appears to be no difference in light conditions between the two shots - that shouldn't be the case. Also, the "Bigfoot" pic appears slightly out of focus in comparison (making the identification process just that little bit more difficult) - should that be the case?

Originally, I was thinking this was just a case of mistaken identity - the pic being that of one owl which had been sitting on the pole caught in the act of dropping down to a second owl on the ground with wings extended (possibly protecting its meal):

https://www.facebook..._count=1&ref=nf

If misidentification, why tamper with the film? Shouldn't there be more pics in the sequence? Is there any way of telling if some have been removed? What's with the number "5555555555" next to the timestamps? Shouldn't these numbers go up in sequence?

Could it be misidentification + tampering? This is the World of Bigfoot, after all...

No problem, was or am still an amateur astronomer.  I have a software called Redshift, it let's you view the sky from any location in the solar system on any date from 4713 BC to 9999 AD.  Takes maybe 5 or 10 mins to look this up.

The "5555555555" is where someone could program in a name or title, such as "North Field" or "Apple Orchard", in this case it is "5555555555".  Why?  Don't know.

I do agree that the Sasquatch/Bigfoot one is out of focus a bit, as the edge of the road and the grass beyond it seem fuzzy.

[DieChecker]

Night Walker, on 03 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Looking at this pic, it appear to me at least, as if some of the bigfoot is in focus. What looks like a mitten clamped onto the leg, in the lower forground. If you assume that position, and that the head is the lump to the left, and the right shoulder is the lump on toward the top, then... it looks just like someone had jumped into the shot. Maybe off a fence? Maybe the fence the camera is mounted on???

Someone in a furry outfit leaped off a fence into the frame of their game camera. That is what it now looks to me.

Edited by DieChecker, 04 December 2012 - 01:39 AM.

[QuiteContrary]

He claimed he mounted the camera on a tree not a fence, not that it matters, though.

[keninsc]

Interesting? The guy went to the problem to set up a trail cam.......and didn't think setting the clock was important?

Then he gets a picture of what he claimed is a mother Bigfoot and child, interesting still. Not only that but when he posts the picture with the incorrect time setting when he could simply have taken it off without a great deal of super-human computer skills.........I think it takes some three key strokes.

......and why does the included picture of the fox bother me?