Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 08:49:28 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/healthscience/web.1114meteor.php?page=1

 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Bigfoot Sightings

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bigfoot Sightings  (Read 2016 times)
0 Members and 45 Guests are viewing this topic.
Zodiac
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4530



« on: February 11, 2007, 08:16:44 pm »

Why isn't there more footage of a sasquatch?
Top 10 Reasons Why There Isn't More Footage


1) Very few people in rural areas keep a camera handy at all times.

2) Witnesses consistently describe initial confusion and fear during their sighting.

3) Sightings typically last only a few seconds. A camcorders' auto-focus, by itself, takes a few seconds to adjust.

4) Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.

5) Sightings in a given area are usually rare. Sasquatches may be on the move most of the time.

6) The only practical opportunities for footage or photos with everyday cameras are situations where a sasquatch is observed out in the open, in the day time, from a distance, for several minutes. Those situations are rarely described.

7) The typical habitats are dense, brushy, quiet forests, where human intruders can be heard well before they get within visual range. In those environments a person can be completely invisible to someone standing less than 10 feet away.

Cool Sasquatches are likely nocturnal. Hunters and fisherman almost never hunt after dark without a flashlight or lamp.

9) Sasquatches are likely intelligent. Just as their bodies are much larger than humans', so, apparently, are their heads, and presumably their brain cavities as well. They don't live like humans, but they are certainly more complex than other ape species.

10) They may be the most elusive land mammal species of all, yet they receive the least amount of effort or attention from the government.

Many critics of the sasquatch phenomenon point to the scarcity of photographic or video evidence as a reason to doubt the existence of the species. Although no one has ever debunked the best footage that is available, skeptics continue to question why sasquatch images are so rare. Quick logic suggests there should be miles of footage if the animals really do live in our forests, especially considering how much footage there is of other large North American mammals. Although a handful of short blurry or inconclusive film clips *may* depict real sasquatches, neither the Patterson/Gimlin footage nor any of the lesser clips possess the quality that viewers have come to expect from commercial wildlife footage.

Commencing with the fifteen-minute telecast “The Nature of Things” (1948-1954), natural history documentaries significantly impacted common perceptions regarding wildlife photography. Popular programs such as “Marty Stouffer’s Wild America” and, in more recent years, “The Crocodile Hunter” contributed to the belief that any terrestrial (land) animal can be located, followed, and filmed in the wild by naturalists and professional cameramen without too much difficulty. With that in mind, it is hard for the general public to accept the premise that any large species can consistently elude determined film makers. While these conclusions may appear to be logical enough, most people are simply uninformed about the elements involved.

In addition to the failure of professional wildlife cinematographers to film a sasquatch, critics also emphasize the fact that millions of people live near or visit purported sasquatch habitat. Many of these people are armed with cameras. It stands to reason, according to the argument of skeptics, that sheer chance alone dictates that someone should see and photograph a sasquatch. As with the odds of a random hunter killing a sasquatch, there are many unique and unusual factors to consider when evaluating a random photographer’s odds for success.

The term "random photographer" is used to describe someone toting a camera who is not specifically looking for a sasquatch but who may find himself or herself in a position to photograph or videotape one. A random photographer's odds must be analyzed differently than the odds of someone who is specifically looking for a sasquatch. The vast majority of people who have cameras or camcorders with them in forests are tourists and vacationers, not professional wildlife photographers. Tourists and vacationers are usually found in places where there are lots of other tourists and vacationers. This class of photographer rarely gets far away from crowds and is typically found along well kept trails and roads in popular destinations such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Grand Canyon National Park.

Adventurous nature tourists may occasionally don backpacks and join smaller groups headed to less crowded locations, but those trips still take place along marked trails or down rivers that endure relatively heavy and consistent human traffic. Safety concerns keep most backpackers close to marked and maintained trails. More experienced backpackers may venture into wilder mountainous or densely forested areas, but even here they generally stick to some kind of established path.

Elusive woodland or wilderness animals such as predators, on the other hand, do not search out maintained trails. Such creatures know the routes used by animals and (especially) humans. If a bear or mountain lion were to travel along a trail frequented by people, it would normally use the trail at night, a time when it is less likely to have a surprise encounter with a human. In those rare instances when an unanticipated encounter occurs along a road or a maintained trail, animals like cougars, wolves and bears usually slip back into the woods within a few seconds, before a backpacker can get a camera ready to shoot a single frame.

Most nature tourists, even backpackers, carry cameras for the purpose of photographing themselves, fellow travelers, and landscapes. Cameras are brought to preserve vacation memories, not to photograph quick moving animals. Tourists do not usually hold cameras in their hands until they reach a place where they know they are going to take a photograph, and many people keep cameras safely secured inside backpacks. Many seconds may elapse before the average tourist is able to remove a backpack, fish a camera out of the bag, deal with the lens cap, try to focus the camera, find the subject in the view finder, and take the shot.

The desire or ability to photograph a large dangerous looking wild animal always depends on the comfort level of the tourist. Photographing a group of large hungry polar bears poses no threat when the tourist is seated safely inside a large heated bus designed specifically for the purpose of thwarting large hungry polar bears. Similarly, photographing "park bears" eating from a garbage dump in Yellowstone is not an uncomfortable situation because lots of other people are also standing around taking pictures.

The situation is totally different when a backpacker observes a large dangerous looking animal while hiking through a forest. Encountering a bear or mountain lion in a remote area can be a very frightening experience, even if the animal turns and runs away. When a surprise confrontation occurs, the observer is usually very concerned about his or her safety. The observer does not think about taking pictures at that moment, even if he or she has a camera in hand. This physiologically derived response can be likened to the "Drive-by Shooting Effect."

Drive-by shootings were a nightly occurrence in Los Angeles during the 1980s and early 1990s. Dozens of people were killed each year. There were, collectively, hundreds of witnesses to these incidents.

There is only one piece of video footage documenting an actual drive-by shooting. This astounding fact appears to defy superficial logic, considering that Los Angeles is one of the media capitals of the world. Many Angelenos own cameras and try to make a buck with them.

The one piece of footage was obtained by a free-lance TV crew. The crew was taking a break between stories and testing its gear in a dark downtown neighborhood when the incident quickly unfolded in front of them. The crew dove for the floor of the van while the camera continued rolling.

They got the footage, but it happened unintentionally. The camera happened to be sitting on a tripod, with tape rolling, and pointed in the direction of the gas station where the shooting happened.

If the crew had somehow gotten advance warning that a shooting was going to occur, the camera would not have been sitting on a tripod outside the vehicle. It would have been on a camerman's shoulder. He would have likely taken cover when the shooting started, and he would have missed getting footage of the shooting.

Unexpected sense of extreme danger will interfere with any mission or desire to take pictures or shoot video.

For a sasquatch to be an easy target for casual photographers, it would have to wander repeatedly into the open, in daylight, and in predictable places frequented by humans. However, sighting patterns indicate that sasquatches prefer to remain in thick forests, venturing out only after nightfall. In addition, reported behaviors seem to indicate that sasquatches feel very vulnerable when observed by humans, a common mammalian response. Because viewing opportunities are exceedingly rare to begin with, especially in daylight, the odds of a random person photographing a sasquatch are negligible.

On the other hand, the odds of a "sasquatch photographer" have to be analyzed differently. A person specifically dedicated to the goal of photographing a sasquatch is likely to be more mentally prepared to handle the surprise of an encounter and has undoubtedly played out possible scenarios many times over. The photographer knows the sasquatch may dash off quickly; a camera, featuring an appropriate lens, fast film, and possibly equipped with a night-vision attachment, is kept handy. Even with these advantages, however, the would-be sasquatch photographer must still overcome daunting difficulties.

Before addressing some of these major hindrances, it is important to note that very few experienced photographers intent on documenting a sasquatch actually get into the field on a regular basis. Although many skeptics assume there must be hundreds, or at least dozens, of these individuals, in reality, photographers consistently trying to track sasquatches probably number fewer than five. At best, only a few dozen investigators get into the field on a monthly basis. Because nearly everyone on the sasquatch field research scene today has a day job, researchers are rarely able to remain in the field for more than a few days at a time. The number of people employed full time to get sasquatch footage is zero (0); in fact, there are no paid positions in any aspect of sasquatch field research.

As surprising as it may sound, no television wildlife production company or wildlife magazine has ever put a professional wildlife photographer in the field for more than a few days in an attempt to obtain photographs, film, or video footage. Production companies that do produce programs dealing with sasquatches typically focus their attention on sasquatch researchers and theorists rather than trying to get original footage.

Part of the problem is that production companies do not have the luxury of planning for long-term projects with ambiguous odds of success. It is much easier and more financially feasible to spend a few days or weeks tagging along with folks who call themselves sasquatch researchers, interviewing them, asking cliche questions, and showing stock footage. By necessity, TV producers are not long term project managers. The expenses involved in television production necessitate strenuous deadlines and reliable project completion criteria. Sasquatches, for better or worse, do not lend themselves to short term media planning.

One practical long term plan for a sasquatch photographer would be to follow up on recent reports and pinpoint promising areas to patrol on horseback at least a few times a year for several days at a time. Sasquatch photographers almost never have the time or resources to conduct these kinds of repeated, extended, horse packing trips. In fact, the last people who actually did this over the course of a few years were Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. They were able to approach the photography challenge from this angle because their jobs were seasonal, they were experienced backwoods hunters, and they had ready access to horses. Patterson and Gimlin also had a decent communications network that enabled them to stay abreast of the most recent sightings and track finds in the Pacific Northwest. In 1967 sasquatch tracks started turning up as logging roads were bulldozed in remote mountainous reaches of northern California. Footprints were found in the new roads and nearby areas, including the bed of Bluff Creek. Patterson and Gimlin got wind of the track finds and soon set out on horseback, searching for days along the creek. On horseback they could travel long distances and easily patrol areas each day that were rarely seen by humans.

By a fortuitous twist of fate, the bottom land adjacent to Bluff Creek was quite open in late 1967. A major storm had caused massive flooding earlier in the year and, as a result, little more than sand bars, mud flats, and flood debris characterized the creek in many places. For months after the floods, animals had to venture out into the open, crossing extensive mud and sand bars, to get to water, a fact that may have played a role in the discovery of tracks during that period of time by sasquatch researchers such as John Green and Al Hodgson. It was obviously a crucial factor allowing Roger Patterson to film a sasquatch as it retreated from the water's edge back to the tree line. The location now looks very different. Riparian vegetation has grown back with a vengeance. Today Patterson and Gimlin would not be able to see the figure from where they first spotted it, nor would they have an unobstructed view of it as it walked back into the dense coniferous forest. It is evident that a host of unique circumstances and the right combination of people, place, plan, preparedness and perseverance enabled the documentation of the sasquatch in 1967. The fact that no one has matched Patterson and Gimlin’s feat in the ensuing decades serves as testimony to the magnitude of their achievement and the monumental difficulty of the task.

Hindrances faced by contemporary photographers stem mainly from the elusive habits of sasquatches. Almost any other type of terrestrial animal is easier to locate and photograph, not only because there are more of them, but also because they live in more predictable locations. Sasquatches may be nomadic, that is, it appears that their food requirements and social structure may force movements from place to place on a frequent basis and in unpredictable patterns within a large home range. It is evident that they are nocturnal to a considerable degree and extremely wary of humans.

Elusive predators such as wolves, cougars and bears have more predictable territories and behaviors, enabling them to be trapped. Captive animals can be relocated to settings designed with the needs of the wildlife image market in mind. As a prominent wildlife photographer related, "An animal such as a cougar is virtually never photographed in the wild unless it is hounded by dogs first. All of the images on calendars, in magazines and books are taken in captivity - even if they don't look like it. There is a whole industry around the photography of difficult predators. Photo tours to game farms such as the Triple D in Montana are big business and they are also a source for film makers - even documentary film makers." These facilities, offering expansive naturalistic settings, make it easy for cinematographers to locate their subject for filming, creating the impression that a wild animal has been skillfully approached and followed consistently through unrestricted habitat as it hunts, feeds and reproduces. Much of wildlife videography is "staged" in this way.

The nocturnal habits of sasquatches also create huge challenges for photographers. Light problems also make the effort much more costly as a result of expensive night vision and/or infrared illumination equipment requirements. Illuminating a sasquatch with a bright light apparently doesn't have the mesmerizing effect it has with deer. The few sasquatch researchers who claim to have briefly spotlighted a sasquatch say it only lasted a few seconds, and they weren't given a second opportunity. Sasquatches apparently do not like having lights shined in their eyes. They won't attack people who illuminate them, but they will retreat quickly into the brush and leave the immediate vicinity.

For many years a major hindrance for sasquatch photographers was finding out where sasquatches have been sighted. Sasquatch photographers are still quite dependent on the most recent leads from witnesses because last year's information may not be relevant unless it helps to establish a solid pattern. For the last twenty years the main problem in gathering data from witnesses was that most witnesses were afraid to make reports, or didn't know where to make reports. Outlandish supermarket tabloids with bogus sasquatch tales had a tremendous silencing effect on most witnesses. These tabloids hijacked the term "Bigfoot" and turned it into cartoon monster figure, rather than a common name for a whole group of animals. These ubiquitous publications made witnesses vulnerable to ridicule and teasing, and their observations were placed on a level with "Elvis sightings." Dispatchers for law enforcement and park rangers typically did not record these kinds of reports and often insulted witnesses who called. Sasquatch researchers wanted these reports but witnesses usually didn't know who the researchers were or how to reach them.

Sasquatch researchers had their best success locating witnesses in parts of the Pacific Northwest where people traditionally spoke rather openly about sasquatch sightings. In the northwest, in general, people are more open to the idea of sasquatches, so many heard about sightings or track finds by other local residents, especially those living in smaller communities. Those reports eventually reached those who wanted to document them.

Starting in the late 1990s, the Internet has greatly facilitated communications between witnesses and those seriously interested in witness reports. Greater numbers of recent reports are making their way to researchers and investigators, and locations can be more easily plotted. This new communication channel has surprised many veteran researchers because of the quantity and quality of reports from forested regions that were not formerly thought of as "bigfoot country." Many of the eastern states, the Great Lakes region and the Appalachians apparently have as many credible recent eyewitnesses as the Pacific Northwest.

The Internet isn't the only technology that will facilitate future sasquatch research. Compact video systems are becoming more affordable each year. Some of these systems allow for unmanned video surveillance of a target area. Unmanned systems may prove to be key devices for obtaining a good quantity of close range daylight footage.

In summary, several explanations serve to answer questions regarding the paucity of sasquatch photographic documentation. A short list could include:

a) few people in the field are trying to photograph them,
b) no professional wildlife production company is willing to commit to a systematic and long term effort the way Patterson and Gimlin did, and
c) crucial technology has not been affordable or available until very recently.

With more reports becoming available to the public in a timely manner via the Internet, and unmanned camera systems becoming more affordable, new people will undoubtedly attempt new photographic techniques in new areas. This could soon lead to unprecedented images that may have an enormous impact on sasquatch research, natural history, and science in general.
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=412

 
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy