Guest Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 light is not infinite in it's distance within an atmosphere. I have experimented with my cats at 40-50 feet. I could only see eye shine if I was in a direct line. If I moved two feet to the side of the light, the eye shine would disappear. Also in eye shine it is the pupils that are reflecting. In eye glow it is either the whites or perhaps the iris that glows as I could see dark pupils within the eyes. Gotafeeling, depends how far to the side he was. As I said, the main thing to look for is the dark pupils within the eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Here is a picture of bf eyeglow. It is not mine. I believe it was taken by BFRO member Val Adams. The bf is peering over the hood of a truck with one eye. The picture is here: http://s716.photobucket.com/user/1059210th/media/ValAdamseyeglow.jpg.html it comes from this website: http://s2.excoboard.com/BFRO/150505/2290536 Edited January 30, 2014 by OHZoologist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Our eyes can see light from galaxies 2.6 million light years away. Some animals' eyes are likely more sensitive than ours...."The Earth's surface curves out of sight at a distance of 3.1 miles, or 5 kilometers. But our visual acuity extends far beyond the horizon. If Earth were flat, or if you were standing atop a mountain surveying a larger-than-usual patch of the planet, you could perceive bright lights hundreds of miles distant. On a dark night, you could even see a candle flame flickering up to 30 mi. (48 km) away.How far the human eye can see depends on how many particles of light, or photons, a distant object emits. The farthest object visible with the naked eye is the Andromeda galaxy, located an astonishing 2.6 million light-years from Earth. The galaxy's 1 trillion stars collectively emit enough light for a few thousand photons to hit each square centimeter of Earth every second; on a dark night, that's plenty to excite our retinas.Back in 1941, the vision scientist Selig Hecht and his colleagues at Columbia University made what is still considered a reliable measurement of the "absolute threshold" of vision — the minimum number of photons that must strike our retinas in order to elicit an awareness of visual perception. The experiment probed the threshold under ideal conditions: study participants' eyes were given time to adapt to total darkness, the flash of light acting as a stimulus had a (blue-green) wavelength of 510 nanometers, to which our eyes are most sensitive, and this light was aimed at the periphery of the retina, which is richest in light-detecting rod cells." Edited January 30, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 but in an atmosphere light dissipates the farther it travels. We are talking about one person seeing another things eyes reflecting light within an atmosphere. Not about stars. And the agreeable angle is very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 A candle light, at 30 miles, seems like a long way to me within the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I actually don't buy that. A lot of ifs there, if the earth was flat and it was real dark, probably no humidity at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Hello thermalman, I think you mean light years? OOPS, you did say light years, sorry Edited January 31, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I think meldrum said recently that it wouldn't be possible to have bioluminescent eyes. Anyone have the quote? If there was light generated from within the eye it would interfere with normal vision. The opsin protein in rods and cones would constantly be excited from photons being generated within the eye. It would be like sticking a little flashlight right up against the side of your eyeball. If someone is seeing glowing eyes, not tapetum lucidum reflection, it's most likely not Bigfoot or any eyes at all. If it just has to be Bigfoot glowing a better assumption would be bioluminescent spots used for communication or sexual selection like a peacocks tail, which is probably just as far fetched. Quick thoughts on the tapetum lucidum. It appears to be a fairly common adaptation amongst vertebrates having been evolved independently several times. When primates lost the tapetum lucidum is up for debate. Its possible primates may not have originated nocturnal but were in fact diurnal based upon the opsin genes in some nocturnal lemurs. Strepsirrhini primates, of which lemurs belong, evolved a unique tapetum which uses riboflavin to reflect light, for most mammals it's collagen. Concerning Bigfoot, the evolution of a tapetum would have had to occur after it diverged off whatever branch of the great ape tree. It would have to be an independently evolved structure different than previous examples. It is not really possible to re-evolve an adaptation once it is lost. Once a gene is no longer useful there is no selective pressure keeping it from mutating. It's called Dollo's law and while it's not a hard and fast rule, there are some examples that counter it, but the tapetum lucidum was lost to primates somewhere around 50 million years ago. I couldn't find what genes are responsible, they may not be known yet, for the tapetum but they are mostly likely unrepairable junk to primates at this point. So there's a decent chance the shine coming off Bigfoot could be completely different, in color anyway. Or it could resemble the other current examples due to convergent evolution. Concerning the Asian boy with the glowing eyes I think it's garbage. It originally showed up as a story in 2009 and then the exact same news story in 2012. It's probably a hoax or a joke. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1358962/pdf/12545693.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14712.full.pdf http://books.google.ca/books?id=gaRjlE9BEk8C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=lemur+tapetum+lucidum&source=bl&ots=qMsrcBb_ti&sig=XVKJcEqjZOitEzfWDUhnO8oT1cI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RfvpUvPuB5GBogThs4KoBw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=lemur%20tapetum%20lucidum&f=false http://www.livescience.com/18209-china-cat-eyed-boy-night-vision.html This was a great post. In response to the OP, it has been occasionally reported. However, my advice is to stop watching Finding Bigfoot! Hahahaha, I dont give it any kind of creedence. It's kinda just there sometimes, so I watch it. I dont go to it for information, I go here for that. xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'd be very selective about what "information" you mine from here. Beware of personal theories based on nothing presented as fact. In fact look out for that everywhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I can't edit the above but just to qualify a bit further - We all theorise based on our own belief systems, personal experiences and biases, it's only human after all. It's when some then present these personal theories as established fact that one should take issue with. This occurs everywhere, not just in relation to this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 31, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted January 31, 2014 Spot on Parkie.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Moneymaker makes a lot of wild leaps, but this one really takes the cake. First it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they even exist in the first place, we don't have any living specimen or a corpse to study so how can he come to that conclusion? Secondly, bioluminescent eyes doesn't occur anywhere else in the animal kingdom, so how can he come to that conclusion? Thirdly, what would the incentive be for Bigfoot to evolve this characteristic? Fourthly, bioluminescent eyes would interfere with normal vision and make night vision a practical impossibility. Not a good trait for an animal the show claims is a nocturnal animal. So how can he come to that conclusion? Finally, in science "I don't know" is a correct and acceptable answer so how does he come to that conclusion instead of simply admitting he doesn't know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 ^Kind of makes you wonder about MM et al, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 ^^^I am not sure I hear anything from MM lately that doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) I can't edit the above but just to qualify a bit further - We all theorise based on our own belief systems, personal experiences and biases, it's only human after all. It's when some then present these personal theories as established fact that one should take issue with. This occurs everywhere, not just in relation to this subject. Oh, yeah, of course. Some people, you can really tell that what they're saying is rooted in fact, that they know what they're talking about, and some people... not so much. I think the key is to look at your posts after you post them, and ask yourself... would I listen to this guy?? xD If you guys havent seen the episode in question, Moneymaker said that the bioluminescent eyes are used to signal to other individuals and identify themselves as the same species. It really seemed like something he pulled out of the air to try to make sense of what the witness claimed to have seen. Sometimes I wonder if we're looking for the same animal. Some of us are looking for a biological, flesh and blood animal, and some people seem to be looking for some kind of supernatural cartoon character. Edited January 31, 2014 by ForestTone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts