America's Wilderness

Photo credit - E. Winick - ewinickphotos.instaproofs.com

       "If there was such a thing as bigfoot we would have found it by now." "How could such a large animal remain hidden in such an urban country?" These and other similar lines often make up the core of bigfoot skeptics' arguments. And, they have a point. It does seem highly unlikely that an animal predicted to stand seven to ten feet tall and weight upwards of five hundred pounds could exist. However, it seems to me that many people underestimate just much wilderness remains in America.

    Based on data collected by the United States Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service, the current amount of land deemed "wilderness" within America stands at a whopping one hundred and nine million, four hundred and seventy-eight thousand, nine hundred and thirty-nine acres. Or, simplified: 109,478,939 acres. In total, this amount of land covers more area than the state of California. Now, I don't know about you, but to me that is a huge amount of wilderness. Given, the total land mass of America is around 2.3billion acres, one can conclude wilderness makes up twenty-one percent of all American land. Some estimates range as high as twenty-six percent, however. In all that unexplored, untamed land, I feel it is possible that a large animal could remain undetected. Especially if said animal did not want to be found and was intelligent enough to evade attempts at capture.

    Imagine, a wilderness the size of the state of California. Now place within that a small population of forest-savvy, intelligent bipedal hominins that do not wish to be found. Release into this wilderness an even smaller group of bigfoot researchers. How greatly are the odds stacked against them? Consider, as well, that these researchers are busy dealing with all the problems, appointments, and stresses of everyday life, such that their time spent exploring this area is severely hampered. Needless to say, my bet is on the bigfoots remaining hidden.

American Wilderness - Wilderness.net/NWPS/static

    Of course, there is the added factor of hunters. As they routinely travel into the backwoods of America, hunters comprise a large population of boots on the ground when it comes to searching for the big guy. The problem remains, however, that hunters are not searching for bigfoot. They are hunting game animals. The methods used in locating game animals are drastically different than those used by bigfoot researchers. Nonetheless, bigfoot sightings by hunters are relatively common and, in fact, a large portion of bigfoot sightings come from hunters (The BFRO sighting database is an excellent source for reading up on these sightings).

Another factor to consider is the shared U.S. - Canadian border. Where America's percent of wilderness is approximately twenty-one to twenty-six percent of it's total landmass, Canada boast much more vast tracts of wild land. Exact numbers are hard to find, but the general consensus seems to hover between forty-five to fifty-five percent. Along nearly all of the border American wilderness intersects Canadian wilderness. With very few geographical landmarks separating this land, animals could easily pass between the two. Thus, Canadian wilderness must also be considered when thinking about the amount of wilderness in North America.

    With such large amounts of land, it is quite naive to think all of it has been searched, or even thoroughly explored. In this vast area, I feel it is entirely feasible for a large, intelligent, biped to remain undetected. Do not be deterred, however, bigfoot researchers. Eventually, the discovery will be made. Just keep your eyes open and cameras ready.

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

Difficulties of photographing bigfoot pt.3

**This is a companion piece to The difficulties of photographing bigfoot pt.1 and pt.2**

Subject approx. 100 ft. from photographer
    

    This conclusion post to The difficulties of photographing bigfoot parts one and two is a short conclusion to the set.

    One of the many advantages of trying to hide in a forested environment is the natural advantages of shadow and glare. Due to breaks in the canopy, sunlight shines down to the forest floor at random, disjointed intervals. As well, thick spots in the canopy create darker areas. This varied atmosphere makes for great hiding spots. Glare, caused by reflective, lighter surfaces contrasted with other darker surfaces on the forest floor, results in the lessened ability of an observer to see into shadowy areas. Take the photo to the left as an example. There is a six foot tall person, wearing a bright green shirt, standing in the treeline. The subject is approximately one-hundred feet from the camera, standing straight up.

    To the right is the same photo, but zoomed in on the subject. Even with this edit applied, it is not easy to see the subject. Thank goodness for that bright green shirt and those white-tipped converse! The glare in the photo (caused by sunlight reflecting off of the lighter colored grass) obscures the ability of the observer to peer into the shadows of the treeline. An animal fitting the description of "bigfoot" or "sasquatch" would have dark fur, lending it even more of an advantage when hiding in deep shadows.

    Environmental factors such as this are just some of the reasons that forests and woodlands make for great hiding spots for such a large animal as the sasquatch.

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

 

   

Difficulties of photographing bigfoot pt.2

**This is a companion piece to The Difficulties of Photographing Bigfoot pt.1**

Auto focus on with subject at approx. 50 ft.

    As mentioned in part one of this post, the odds of getting a clear, concise photograph of a bigfoot in a forested environment are quite low. In this post I'll touch on another factor that makes the forest such a challenging place to capture pictures: autofocus.

    Nearly every camera on the market now comes equipped with a nifty little program called autofocus. When active, autofocus will approximate the subject you are trying to photograph and move the camera lens so that this subject is in focus. The feature was developed as a time saver, meant mainly for taking photos of stationary objects, groups of people, etc. For the vast majority of picture taking, autofocus works very well. However, attempting to use it in a forested environment creates several problems.

    Forests and wooded areas are filled with animals, plant life, swaying branches, and often drastic changes between deep shadows and bright light. All of these can hinder the performance of autofocus. Unless a clear line of sight is established between the camera and its subject, the subject is not moving too fast, and the light conditions are stable, autofocus will not successfully take a clear picture. For an example of this, look at the photo to the right. The subject is standing at approximately fifty feet from the camera. This photo was taken with a Canon EOS Rebel T2i, a top of the line SLR boasting 18megapixels. The subject was stationary, there are not many leaves on the trees, and the conditions are clear. However, the branches in front of the photo managed to turn what would otherwise be a clear picture into a blurry mess. Such is the downside of autofocus, it is easily confused by foliage and non-stationary objects. Every nature photographer captures a blurry photo of their subject from time to time. If they didn't delete them, there would be just as many blurry photos of birds and raccoons as there are of the big guy.

Same camera, same spot, manual focus.

    To avoid your otherwise perfect photo of the big guy becoming just another blobsquatch, I recommend learning how to use manual focus on your camera. Most high end cameras come with the option to turn off autofocus and engage manual focus. A photographer who is familiar with the manual focus option on their camera can return much better results, capturing clear and focused photos even in a challenging environment. A person operating the focus on a camera will almost always be quicker than the camera doing so automatically. We're just good like that. The photo to the left was taken from the exact same camera in the exact same spot as the first picture. The only difference? The photographer used manual focus.

    For years the presumed undiscovered great ape of North America has eluded clear photographs by fooling autofocus. But now, with masses of researchers armed with manually focused SLRs, those days are over. (I hope.)

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

 

The difficulties of photographing bigfoot

Subject is approx. 80 ft. from photographer

    **This is part one of a multiple post project explaining the difficulties of photographing bigfoot. Part 2 can be found here.**  

    More often than not, alleged photos of sasquatches show nothing more than blurry, shadowy groupings of pixels that may, or may not, be an animal. Blobsquatches, they are called. The "Beast of Seven Chutes" is a good example. The picture, at first, appears to show an animal. However, the longer one looks, the more one begins to question if it isn't some trick of the light or a misidentified natural object. Many skeptics cite the multitudes of blobsquatch photos when arguing the case against the existence of a North American great ape. So why do most "bigfoot" photos show blurry, out-of-focus shapes and not clear, concise images?

    Top of the line SLR cameras are widely accessible and now come with up to 21.2 megapixels to ensure professional quality in every photo. Point-and-shoot cameras are boasting upwards of 10mp now-a-days. Even the iPhone 4s comes equipped with an 8 megapixel camera. In today's technology filled world, bigfoot believers should be capturing clear, definitive pictures of this alleged "bigfoot", right? Wrong. Photographing at your niece's Soccer game is one thing, taking your camera into the forest is entirely another.

    Take the picture above and to the right of this text for instance. There is a six foot tall person in a bright green shirt in the center of that photograph. Can you find him? The subject is standing approximately eighty feet from the photographer. The photograph was taken with a Sony Cybershot that has 10.1 megapixels. The conditions are clear, the terrain is flat, there is not a lot of ground cover, and even the leaves on the trees aren't blocking the subject much. Do you see him? The picture below and to the left of this text is a zoomed version of the above. Okay, so now we see the guy! But notice how blurry he is? This is the result of applying a zoom effect to the photograph. Almost looks a bit like a blobsquatch. Now imagine if the subject was not wearing a bright green shirt. Not standing straight up. Maybe even hiding from the photographer? It would be near impossible to see him.

Same photo as above, zoomed.

     The dense forests of North America, and particularly those of the Pacific Northwest, create a very unsuitable environment for photographing animals. Consequently, they make a very suitable environment for large animals to remain hidden. Assuming sasquatches are real and that they have no interest in approaching humans (who can blame them, we're not the nicest species to coexist with) I feel it would be very easy for them to remain hidden.

    I was the subject of the two photos seen here. From my position, approximately eighty feet from the photographer, I had an exceptional vantage point. Were I a large, intelligent animal that did not wish to be spotted, I would have had no trouble scoping out the photographer from further than eighty feet away and slipping off back into the forest.

Subject approx. 50 ft. from photographer

    The odds of getting a good photo of a sasquatch are stacked against researchers for a number of reasons: There are vast amounts of untamed wilderness in North America. If bigfoots do exist, they have a huge amount of land to occupy. In all of this wilderness finding one of these animals would be beyond difficult. If one was immensely lucky and did find a bigfoot they'd better hope they have a camera with them. They'd also have to have the camera at the ready, be able to focus it, and snap a photo of the animal. (When I say "focus it" I mean manually focus the camera. Auto-focusing is next to useless in dense foliage. I'll touch more on this in the next post.) Considering the difficulty of photographing in forests presented above, the odds of the photo being clear and concise are low. Very low. Also worth considering is the alleged nature of sasquatches. Researchers claim the cryptids tends to avoid humans. This would only further increase the difficulty of getting a good shot of the animal.
 
    Blobsquatches dominate the world of bigfoot pictures, and rightly so. The difficulty of photographing effectively in a forested environment is immense. Hopefully we can all keep this in mind as we move forward.

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.