Can Bigfoot see in IR Options

[brubakej]

I have seen many postings on various websites how Bigfoot can see in the IR range. Many claim that the reason the IR cameras aren't working is because he sees the light. We can not see in Infra Red, so I doubt Bigfoot can either. But maybe like snakes, bigfoot might be able to detect IR because infrared radiation is in the form of heat. Maybe he is able to detect the heat difference from the sensor and the surrounding areas and this is why he might shy away from the source. The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. So maybe his mother taught him not to touch something "hot" and to avoid it. Anybody have any ideas on this?

This post has been edited by brubakej: Oct 6 2009, 06:17 AM

[StacyInMI]

Can Bigfoot see in IR

If it could, it'd be blinded during the day. There are many threads on this.

[sasquatchin]

The problem is that most IR cameras don't EMIT IR, they DETECT IR, big difference.

There still are some that use IR illumination, but these wouldn't be very efficient
for use in the woods, too much current drain.

There might be a problem with hearing the charging circuit of a flash, a very high pitched
whine.

[COwatcher]

I have heard this debated numerous times.

In my opinion it is more likey that they notice differences in the area. ie the great big box on the tree...not to mention the smells that people leave behind. There are tons of stories of BF skirting camps and watching. Though there are stories of them entering camps they are not as prolific as the hanging on the side of a camp stories.

So say that the whole camera trap theory is being used wrong......Thinking like a deer and not a BF. If Bigfoot hunts deer and elk and IF bf is as intelligent as I think that it is then maybe they are very careful to not enter a trail where the deer would smell it. Maybe it is just that the camera is facing the wrong direction to catch the preditor.

Maybe the camera and the investigator is to new to the area and the smells and the motives and the cameras are not trusted yet.

I see them as being very cautious and very timid, though not at all afraid. Once in their element it is their party, but they are not trusting.

I still think that the way to catch one on film is to put the camera inside a vehicle parked in the woods near to your camp. Think abourt it......the BFRO has tons of reports of BF hand prints on vehicles from RV's to vans to lord knows. It is a smell that we as the human race have aclimated them to, in that most vehicles smell the same and most 'people' do not. However if you think about it vehicles by design are made for it. Most of them have windows all of the way around them and you could easily angle four cameras to look in all directions and then you could sit in camp and do normal camp things and let the camera catch them. Or even rig a back up camera to a recording device.....Some of the sounds would be masked by the car and the camp noises as well, so the wind up would be less noticable.


If I had the money I would.

Anyway that is my theory on Cameras and why they don't get the gold. Good Bad Or Ugly


As for eye shine. I have seen it a few times. The ones I saw was blue/green and was the same regardless of ambiant lighting. Dark with outdoor lighting to total dark with just the stars to total dark and cloud cover to total dark cloud cover with snow on the ground(pretty bright) There is deffinatley something about the eyes that allows them to 'turn on' it seems.
However not every time I have had an encounter has there been eye shine. Does that allow them to see infa red? no one knows the answer to that. Although running full out through the darkness would need some sort of specialized vision you would think.

[bipedalist]

As for eye shine. I have seen it a few times. The ones I saw was blue/green and was the same regardless of ambiant lighting.There is deffinatley something about the eyes that allows them to 'turn on' it seems.

Do you think?!?!?!

[dogu4]

It would be quite the adaptation for a primate presumed to be in our relatively recent lineage to be expressing eye-shine as it's typically thought of, but traits are not either used or lost, despite the old adage. Traits (or more likely "suites of traits") sometimes, or maybe even most of the time, can lie buried within what used to be called "junk dna" and under certain influences could be re-activated,or conversely until the switch that's turned the traits off is itself turned off, returning a "lost" trait as a potentially functional trait...or so goes the reasoning.
I agree with COWatcher that BF wouldn't necessarily have to see IR...wherever we go in the forest, no matter what we do, we are largely insensitive to the signatures we leave behind, from scents that are not natural to qualities of how we disturbed the otherwise natural arrangement of a place we've visited. Of course deer or other animals don't mind or arent concerned, but it's tempting to suggest that one of the functions of a big brain such as hominins have is to not only do more complex reasoning but to give us a more detailed and high resolution image of our surroundings against which we can subconsicously compare the total sensory input. Not being as acclimated nor as adapted to that aspect of our natural habitat, which for humans has clearly been hardwired for social signals, perhaps BF are hardwired for other signals such as what typical disturbances should look like, which would be a critical advantage worth conserving when it comes to finding all-important clues regarding prey.
I also agree that if BF were a hunter such as most imagine them to be, considering its size and capabilities, there would be no need to stay on trails which are natural for most 4-legged who use them and for whom they are a great advantage, and which humans naturally follow too. There would be a definite advantage to staying off of them so as to not alert the prey unnecessarily.
An alternate strategy to putting the cameras into a car and looking out the windows in hopes of finding a curious BF observing from the edge of one's site, would be to observe the campsite itself from a distance much farther away than what one thinks the BF might be observing, or able to detect.

[willie red fire]

Most IR led's used in the game cams and security cameras are the cheaper variety and will appear to glow dark red when on.

From wikipedia

visible light (400-700 nm)

IR-A: (700 nm–1400 nm)

As you can read IR extends just outside visible.

Do you think we could detect 701nm wave length?

IMO We can see the lower edge of the IR-A spectrum just like BF. If BF eyes perform better at night then just maybe BF can see just a little further into the IR-A spectrum.


Just my Opinion.................

[COwatcher]

Most IR led's used in the game cams and security cameras are the cheaper variety and will appear to glow dark red when on.

From wikipedia

visible light (400-700 nm)

IR-A: (700 nm–1400 nm)

As you can read IR extends just outside visible.

Do you think we could detect 701nm wave length?

IMO We can see the lower edge of the IR-A spectrum just like BF. If BF eyes perform better at night then just maybe BF can see just a little further into the IR-A spectrum.
Just my Opinion.................

That makes sense. Perception of it I can buy. But using it as it's single type of vision I do not.

[brubakej]

Have read that people feel that the reason trail cameras don't work is because Bigfoot sees the light and shies away. Why don't they put them high up in a tree like tree stand height (>14+ feet)? There are many reports that BF will come up to a hunter sitting in a tree stand and does not look up until he hears the hunter rustle. If there is no reason to look up could this aide in capturing him on film?

[Furious_George]

These are just my guesses..... take it easy, okay.
I don't think BF can see IR. If BF could see IR, along with evading predators, the evolution would also be to see food sources. I would think it would be attracted to a motionless IR source and we would have many more trail cam photos.
If it could see IR, I don't think it would be blind during the day, because my goldfish isn't.
I don't think it has pits on the side of it's head like a viper.

This post has been edited by Furious_George: Nov 2 2009, 03:09 PM

[art bowshier]

Isn't pt tapeturom or some such that allows night vision. I wonder what lesser apes have in their eyes---Do they shine in the light at night? I don't know. What kind of night vision do the great apes have? Eyeshine? Would the larger size eyes have anything to do with night vision. I know there are cones and rods. One sees color, one sees blavk and white. I'm Not sure which-- but, less ofone leeads to night blindness. Less of the other leads to color blindness. At least in humans. More of one would lead to seeing color better. More of one would lead to see better at night. Color blindness is not totally color blind. The thought of seeing in IR may be totally wrong. The size of the eye, tapeturn(?), and cones and rods in the eye can be the only poss. answers.

[Furious_George]

No large primates have the reflective membrane, only some small primitive primates. Some will say BF is different and must have tapetum lucidium because it stays away from cameras with an IR sensor. It's not the greatest argument. There are tons of threads here about it with more info. For me, this subject falls under the ol', "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ~ Carl Sagan.

This post has been edited by Furious_George: Nov 2 2009, 04:53 PM

[Flashman]

IMO their vision might extend a little into the near infra red, wouldn't put any bets on it going past about 800nm. Some people have more near IR sensitivity than others, and it often only reveals itself in complete darkness or when other light is excluded like by wearing shades made out of fully exposed and processed film (The black negatives you get at the start of the reel) which filter most visible light.

Cheapy night vision devices and active IR cams and sensors may have illumination LEDs that have peak output at 730 or 750nm, note well this is peak output, so there is some bleed over into shorter wavelengths. Powerful incandescent lamps that have IR filters applied usually glow dull red, and also tend to put out a lot of far IR in the heat range, you tend to be able to feel this on your cheek or the back of your neck, or even your eyelids with your eyes closed, so it might be unsurprising that a skittish creature might be suspicious of sudden warm beams in the dead of night.

Game cams using passive IR detection and having conventional visible light flashes may emit high frequency sound. I can often hear a lot of consumer camera flashes recharging and holding a high pitched squeal. This is I think because they use a high audio frequency oscillator to pump the charge for the flash. It may be possible to geek out the flash circuitry and try changing a component or two to push this up to 40 or 60Khz.

I have not personally experienced eyeshine attributable to a Sasquatch, but I believe it is possible in near blackout conditions, that retinal reflection from any distant skyglow or light behind an observer could be intensified enough by a larger retina and focused by the lens of the eye such that a human observer could detect a faint red glow. This effect would only be observable by a human eye from an eye larger than a human eye, with the pupil wide open and focussed on the observer. This is the common or garden "redeye" effect, typically not seen by the human eye due to the amount of reflected light being below the detection threshold. A larger eye, gathering more diffuse light and focussing it, may reflect enough to be above the threshold for human observation. BTW when witness accounts say , "It was completely pitch black" I tend to take this as the experience of the observer and the extent of their dark adaption at that point in time rather than the actual conditions, in my experience it is rarely ever "completely pitch black" on the surface of the earth, wait 20 or 30 mins to dark adapt and you can at least pick sky from land. Anytime you see that expression, write it off as a figure of speech, unless followed by "When I faceplanted something hairy and smelly"


Flash.

[vilnoori]

If sasquatches have better night vision it is at the expense of colour vision because they will have proportionally more rods and less cones. No known primates of monkeys and up have a tacitum lucidum, but some night adapted primates do have very large eyes and more rods to help them see in the dark. If a great ape were to adapt to night vision it would do so by more rods than cones and by simply bigger eyes. Some sightings do mention this aspect too. There is no ability in animals to emit light from eyes short of certain fish which have a symbiotic relationship with a type of florescent bacteria and have glow spots under the eyes.

There are some forest mushrooms that can glow in the dark, and there are glow worms too. But the likeliest explanations for a pair of round red eyes in the dark at the expected height of a sasquatch would be an owl, a raccoon or spiders in trees, whose eyes also glow red in the dark by reflecting ambient light.

[driftinmark]

There are some forest mushrooms that can glow in the dark

omg, that was what I ate, lol or maybe it was a happy mushroom

[Flashman]

BTW I don't discount the possibility that an intelligent creature with good night vision or night awareness, might well be able to sense that he has been seen, no matter what the detection method. This could be cues picked up from the night vision or thermal imager operators body language, i.e. looking more attentive and facing that direction. Or maybe there is something also to the bioelectrics theory that there was that cloak thread about. Whatever these cues are, they would be independant of the imaging device.

If I was creeping up on a blind guy with a sonar set mounted to his head, he'd probably pick up "something" when I was at the extreme limit of his range, and turn towards me, though at that point he would probably not have enough resolution to figure out what I was. However, I would notice him turning towards me and probably "seeking" a little either side.. but that would be my cue to hit the deck and retreat. I would also now have a good idea of his detection range, and be able to avoid and outflank him as he advanced towards my previous position.

The FBI had a hell of a time getting photo evidence of a particular mobster and his meetings and contacts etc. He was highly aware and would blow off meetings with any hint of a camera or person turned towards him. The solution in the end was to "hide the camera in plain sight" by fitting a right angle lens to a regular camera that shot sideways. Thus the agent would act tourist, facing 90* away from where the mobster was conducting his "business" and get good pictures of him while pretending to photograph the sights.

The moral here might be, to camouflage your intentions as good as possible. Either by making your body language unreadable by being behind good cover, or by viewing imager output on a monitor at an angle to the line of sight and resisting the temptation very hard, to look up from it in the direction of the contact before the contact has moved forward in the field of view enough for you to ID it.

Yer problem here is, nighttime researchers will be standing on logging roads, in clearings etc in the middle of the night, where the ambient light is a lot greater than under the canopy, really you might as well be standing under spotlights, that's if your imaging devices monitors/screens aren't lighting up your face like a beacon...

[Shef]

Besides a few snakes and insects, the only big creature that can see in IR is The Predator. The actor who portrayed the Predators in the two movies also portrayed Harry in Harry and the Hendersons... so technically...is you stretch it a little bit, Harry could see in IR... thus they can.

[Littlefoot14]

thier are so many theories on this right now, personall i dont beleive he can see IR, i feel that there is some kind of sound omitted by the camera that the human ear cannot detect but the advanced senses of the sasquatch can detect

[art bowshier]

I was reading another thread and came across an article on "TrophyRock" a animal lick with mineral suppliments. It has Selenium which affects skin health, eyesight, and liver function. Which plausibly would build up in the liver during a deer's lifetime. If the theory that bf hunt deer, elk, etc... and eat the livers is true, then the selenium built up over time would be multiplied tenfold and aid eyesight . the liver of a deer is as big as a baskeball when rolled up and quite heavy. Itt would be nearly all protein. I don't kjnow if my logic is all correct, but, it is an observation I thought worthy of adding.

I don't know what potasium does, but, it is important to humans and apes.

[FanofSquatch]

I still think that the way to catch one on film is to put the camera inside a vehicle parked in the woods near to your camp. Think abourt it......the BFRO has tons of reports of BF hand prints on vehicles from RV's to vans to lord knows. It is a smell that we as the human race have aclimated them to, in that most vehicles smell the same and most 'people' do not. However if you think about it vehicles by design are made for it. Most of them have windows all of the way around them and you could easily angle four cameras to look in all directions and then you could sit in camp and do normal camp things and let the camera catch them. Or even rig a back up camera to a recording device.....Some of the sounds would be masked by the car and the camp noises as well, so the wind up would be less noticable.
If I had the money I would.

There was a guy here a few years back who did just that. He would set up camp in a camp ground then cover the inside windows of his pickup and left small openings for him to see out of. After a while he built a "blind" in the back of his truck where he could sit fully concealed and observe. He claimed results but no proof was shown but I liked his ideas.

[bipedalist]

No large primates have the reflective membrane, only some small primitive primates. Some will say BF is different and must have tapetum lucidium because it stays away from cameras with an IR sensor. It's not the greatest argument. There are tons of threads here about it with more info. For me, this subject falls under the ol', "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ~ Carl Sagan.

John Green's new sightings database http://www.sasquatchdatabase.com has many witness encounters where the eyes of the creatures are noted to glow different colors. Check them out, we're talking approx. 200 or more examples. To me, there is something going on, or there would not be that many similar observations. Not including all those in other databases. And, all those of people who only report to forums or confidential reports not listed in databases make it more compelling, Carl Sagan and all aside imho.

This post has been edited by bipedalist: Nov 14 2009, 10:13 AM

[BobZenor]

"...The overall effect is not unlike an owl; the monkey's eyes shine a reddish orange by reflected light. "

This is a part of the description of one of the owl monkeys which I believe are the only nocturnal monkeys. They are reported to have lost their color vision so apparently have more rods and larger eyes to see better at night..