Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
DieChecker

[Merged] Interesting possible Bigfoot pic

105 posts in this topic

The average trigger time from the 21 models they tested was 1.7 seconds.

Correction, average trigger speed of 40 models was 1.27 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

Now trail cam images of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

It is such a consistent part of the bigfoot story I can't label it as unlucky happenstance or blame equipment.

Edited by QuiteContrary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

Now trail cam images of bigfoot consistently turn out poorly.

It is such a consistent part of the bigfoot story I can't label it as unlucky happenstance or blame equipment.

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

001.jpg

Please take the time to go to linked site and take a look.......................

Last week I stumbled across a neat new web site from the Smithsonian Institution called Smithsonian WILD. It features a collection of more than 200,000 photos taken by researches using trail cameras to study wildlife populations in nine different locations around the world. The site is the brainchild of William McShea, a senior research science at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., who designed it to “showcase the exciting research conducted by the Smithsonian Institution and its collaborators around the world, and to highlight the incredible diversity of wildlife that exists in a range of habitats across the globe.” When I called him up to ask if we could run a selection of the photos on our site, he was more than happy to oblige. “Hunters are driving the market for trail cam technology, and and that has translated into direct benefits for our research,” he said. “You can run as many as you like.” What follows are our picks for the 100 best shots from their collection. Enjoy! -- Nate Matthews, Online Editor, fieldandstream.com

Project Description:

Location: Amazon Rainforest

Arabela River, Peru

2008

Cameras Used: Reconyx RC55

Number of Camera Stations: 23

Objectives: This camera survey had two objectives: 1) To inventory medium to large-sized mammal species in a previously unstudied region of the Peruvian Amazon, and 2) To investigate the impact of oil exploration on carnivore movement and activity, with a particular focus on the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis).

Species: Ocelot & Armadillo

Species Description: The ocelot, also known as the Dwarf Leopard, McKenney's Wildcat, Jaguatirica (in Brazil), Jaguarete (in Paraguay and Argentina), Tigrillo (in Ecuador, Colombia and Peru), Cunaguaro (in Venezuela), or Manigordo (in Costa Rica and Panama) is a wild cat distributed over South and Central America and Mexico, but has been reported as far north as Texas and in Trinidad, in the Caribbean. North of Mexico, it is found regularly only in the extreme southern part of Texas, although there are rare sightings in Southern Arizona.

Lots of cool, rare pics here....... http://siwild.si.edu/index.cfm

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the camera model is Reconyx RC55, which had among the fastest trigger time (0.16s) and recovery time (1s) and when it manufactured cost around $550.

The cheaper ones, like the Wildview, cost $90, and the one most recent Wildview review had a trigger time of 1.378s and a recovery of 60s.

Not all cameras perform the same, and this is why I said it would be best if we knew what model camera was used, as that could help understand why the picture is of less then ideal quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the camera model is Reconyx RC55, which had among the fastest trigger time (0.16s) and recovery time (1s) and when it manufactured cost around $550.

The cheaper ones, like the Wildview, cost $90, and the one most recent Wildview review had a trigger time of 1.378s and a recovery of 60s.

Not all cameras perform the same, and this is why I said it would be best if we knew what model camera was used, as that could help understand why the picture is of less then ideal quality.

It is less then ideal because it is a IR shot. And the clothing under the Gillie suit showing through the spaces shows up white. And the person in the gillie suit moved in to get the shot, and was not moving slow.I am sure the other pictures from the burst clearly show this. They probably had to try quite a few times, and pick out from a bunch of pictures to get one that was not obvious.

These 2 pictures are from a Maultrie ( higher end )....Both IR shots.

post-92206-0-59712100-1354373817_thumb.j

Deer above was a dark brown, and was not moving real fast, but moving. If that had been say, a person coming into a shot to act like a creature grabbing apples, he would be moving faster, and have more blur. Not to mention a loose gillie suit that all ready waves around like a flag when you move.

post-92206-0-50493100-1354373977_thumb.j

That sweat shirt is navy blue, damn near black. A picture with me in a Bigfoot costume did the same. And the costume is brown.

My point on this, a gillie suits material is not reflective, most clothes are. A gillie suit has a lot of large openings in it, it is meant to be used when standing still. These openings reveal what is underneath, especially to a IR camera....

This guy below is wearing a lower end gillie suit for the shot. He is also closer to the camera, and not moving. I am having doubts this pic is even a trail cam, but you get the point.You can search and see the many different models, and makes, and prices. I wish I had access to one, and I would duplicate the pic in question.

010.jpg

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you stated, and I agree with, the night mode or IR pictures tend to be of lower quality as the shutter speeds are often longer increasing motion blur, and the IR flash may white out the target. I do agree that a very high end, and expensive camera, can take remarkable pictures. Unfortunately it is unlikely that many of the cameras used by the public are of that quality, simply due to cost. Strapping a $500 device to a tree and leaving it outside for days does obviously risk it getting damaged, or if a poacher happens to see it, being stolen is almost guaranteed.

The Moultrie models are rated above average, but still have trigger times of over 1.5s and the recovery time was several seconds to 30s. They cost anywhere from $130 to $170.

Looking at TrailCamPro's reviews again by price, the 3 models under a $100 all state that their night time photos were either horrible, or dark, grainy and hardly discernible. We could probably agree many night trail cameras pictures match that.

The fact is though is that not all of the available trail cameras perform the same, some are obviously much better then others, and likewise are more expensive. The cost of the higher performance ones probably limits the number of them being used.

What we could probably agree on is that if you are serious about using a trail camera in any field research, spend the money so you get good results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you stated, and I agree with, the night mode or IR pictures tend to be of lower quality as the shutter speeds are often longer increasing motion blur, and the IR flash may white out the target. I do agree that a very high end, and expensive camera, can take remarkable pictures. Unfortunately it is unlikely that many of the cameras used by the public are of that quality, simply due to cost. Strapping a $500 device to a tree and leaving it outside for days does obviously risk it getting damaged, or if a poacher happens to see it, being stolen is almost guaranteed.

The Moultrie models are rated above average, but still have trigger times of over 1.5s and the recovery time was several seconds to 30s. They cost anywhere from $130 to $170.

Looking at TrailCamPro's reviews again by price, the 3 models under a $100 all state that their night time photos were either horrible, or dark, grainy and hardly discernible. We could probably agree many night trail cameras pictures match that.

The fact is though is that not all of the available trail cameras perform the same, some are obviously much better then others, and likewise are more expensive. The cost of the higher performance ones probably limits the number of them being used.

What we could probably agree on is that if you are serious about using a trail camera in any field research, spend the money so you get good results.

I have not been arguing with you at all :)

Not sure if you have trail cams, or are just researching them.

I have 2, and know many people that use them. Just trying to help out with first hand accounts.

Most of the people I know using them, and their friends use the higher end models. $300.00 and up. Lock box's are cheap, and keep the cameras safe. They are left out all over the place, for weeks, even months. To track Elk and Bear mostly, not used much it seems for Deer. Probablly because there are so many around.( only refering to friends and co workers ).

Quite a few people are going, or have gone to " satelite " trail cams. No need to go out and check a sd card, pictures are sent through satelite phone, to your computer at home.

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.

And I have been teased quite a bit about my cameras, although they both take the same quality shots from what I have seen....

I was also trying to show how ( to me, and others at least ) that is a person in a ghillie suit.

Here is a topic that may interest you. I made it over 2 years ago, it is still active.....

http://www.unexplain...pic=183599&st=0

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not thought we were arguing, debating maybe.

I do not own one myself, but have been considering it, hence research. My father owns one, as my folks currently live where using one is useful, and between us its been used frequently. Mostly deer and turkeys.

I had came in when I saw one poster questioning why a trail camera wouldn't have more pictures and why they would be of low quality and thought to explain why they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not thought we were arguing, debating maybe.

I do not own one myself, but have been considering it, hence research. My father owns one, as my folks currently live where using one is useful, and between us its been used frequently. Mostly deer and turkeys.

I had came in when I saw one poster questioning why a trail camera wouldn't have more pictures and why they would be of low quality and thought to explain why they would.

You should get one, or two. It is like Christmas going out to get the SD card.......Kind of fades over time though, if you saw link, I just kept getting the same Deer. Although occasionally, you get a nice shot...

Moultrie's prices sure have gone down in just a few years.....Have not paid attention to that.....Good cams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should get one, or two. It is like Christmas going out to get the SD card.......Kind of fades over time though, if you saw link, I just kept getting the same Deer. Although occasionally, you get a nice shot...

Moultrie's prices sure have gone down in just a few years.....Have not paid attention to that.....Good cams.

I seen that one study you referred to had 23 of the Reconyx, that be a way to go, except then it be almost $13k.

From what I've seen the cellular ones only work on certain networks, and sending a picture across brings the recovery time to a full minute. Not sure if that hampers any burst mode or not.

Ironically I am not far from where one of the samples reportedly used in Ketchum's report came from, the blueberry bagel one. The place is in the Manistee National Forest, has some 800 sq mi of broken forest.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seen that one study you referred to had 23 of the Reconyx, that be a way to go, except then it be almost $13k.

From what I've seen the cellular ones only work on certain networks, and sending a picture across brings the recovery time to a full minute. Not sure if that hampers any burst mode or not.

Ironically I am not far from where one of the samples reportedly used in Ketchum's report came from, the blueberry bagel one. The place is in the Manistee National Forest, has some 800 sq mi of broken forest.

I should send you mine to use there. Have not used them in a year....Wife would kill me though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy below is wearing a lower end gillie suit for the shot. He is also closer to the camera, and not moving. I am having doubts this pic is even a trail cam, but you get the point.You can search and see the many different models, and makes, and prices. I wish I had access to one, and I would duplicate the pic in question.

010.jpg

Nice!!! :tu:

But shucks! I really liked the Mama and Baby theory. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best interest of any investigations, original photos should never be cropped or altered.

Interesting to note that from sources that do not have cropped photos of these, the one of the photos with the coyote was taken on 8/30/10, and the one showing the supposed Sasquatch was taken on 9/2/10. Correct me if I am wrong, but the story seems to be that the coyote was scared off by the approaching Sasquatch?

*edit* the date is in agreement with the story, but the time seems off.

Specifically the time of the Sasquatch was 9/2/010 at 5:55pm. It was supposed to have been taken at night, correct? My Redshift astronomy software shows that the sun was definitely above the horizon at 5:55pm and would not have set until around 7:25pm. Why the need for night mode on this then? Either the date/time was not programed correctly, or the story is not accurate. Not correctly recording the date/time is a major mistake to make in any investigation.

vermont2.jpg

Edited by Insanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best interest of any investigations, original photos should never be cropped or altered.

Interesting to note that from sources that do not have cropped photos of these, the one of the photos with the coyote was taken on 8/30/10, and the one showing the supposed Sasquatch was taken on 9/2/10. Correct me if I am wrong, but the story seems to be that the coyote was scared off by the approaching Sasquatch?

*edit* the date is in agreement with the story, but the time seems off.

Specifically the time of the Sasquatch was 9/2/010 at 5:55pm. It was supposed to have been taken at night, correct? My Redshift astronomy software shows that the sun was definitely above the horizon at 5:55pm and would not have set until around 7:25pm. Why the need for night mode on this then? Either the date/time was not programed correctly, or the story is not accurate. Not correctly recording the date/time is a major mistake to make in any investigation.

vermont2.jpg

When this originally came out, that was mentioned....The person that made the hoax claimed the time was not reset on the camera....Battery change or something. I know on two that I know of, if not reset when changing batteries, it starts at the year 2005, and 12 noon I believe.

I am sticking with the Ghillie suit, to me it is very obvious........God, I wish I had a ghillie suit....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the clip where they talk to the guy and get the background from him.

top video labeled "Here's 5-minute clip of the episode"

http://www.thebigfoo...-episode-2.html

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=205402&st=0

By the way, welcome to UM !

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

6UiZVl.jpgGPrVal.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it odd that trail cam pictures of every other thing turn out clear?.....Even very rare animals?
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.

post-92206-0-92673000-1354312968_thumb.j

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, heh. Just teasing you...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.