HOLDMYBEER Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 using the FLIR, I wonder if there could be/is a way to enhance certian anomalies of the heat signature in different areas of the subject to distinguish differences in various animals? I never operated one,so i'm curious if they could be used in such a manner. I once earned my living as a certiifed thermographer. Yes, particularly with the FLIR brand, you can reduce the gain such that definition is very detailed and observable. The sasquatch/thermal footages that seem to make the rounds typically were made with the gain turned up so high no detail can be seen. I don't really understand why. I suppose the footage could have been made with equipment that had limited ability to discriminate temperatures, but most equipment today is very, very capable. Twenty years ago when I worked at night I calibrated my device on the vascular structures under the skin of my partner's forearm. Which brings me to another question: Just why is there such a plethora of sasquatch video captured by thermal device when all these creatures avoid cameras? A thermal lens is silicon but it looks the same as glass, just like a film camera. Both are passive in that they only collect light (which includes heat infra-red). And not all game cams use flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 10, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 10, 2012 Obviously some form of boxed mirrored recording device with capacity to film in multiple directions is going to be required (or The Falcon Project). Which brings me to another question: Just why is there such a plethora of sasquatch video captured by thermal device when all these creatures avoid cameras? A thermal lens is silicon but it looks the same as glass, just like a film camera. Both are passive in that they only collect light (which includes heat infra-red). And not all game cams use flash. Most if not all captures are at night.......if the captures are done in subdued moonlight or no moonlight with no background light in a forested environment and no campfire, why would you expect any reflection or recognition. Nearly all game cams used at night have to use some form of flash the way I understand it when removed from area lighting anyway. IR covert light would not blind anything unless it was stayon and stared at for long periods of time......not good in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 occasionally things presented in these meetings make it to the press. So what? stories about bigfoot do anyway, or hadn't you noticed? An informal presentation of someone's ideas really doesn't make much of an impact. News coverage of scientific meetings is just about non-existent anyway. Just another rumor, an unconfirmed story about bigfoot. I think you over-estimate the impact of an unconfirmed bigfoot story. Crying wolf I mean bigfoot is a national pasttime. Saskeptic has listed a number of papers about bigfoot, papers that were actually published; I didn't notice panicked people running through the streets, buying up elephant guns when those "exploded onto the front page," did I miss something? Journals wouldn't mind a little blurb in the press. If an author were to try to make it into a media circus, making all sorts of claims, abusing the function of the meeting and its members(or a particular journal) by using it as the platform for their unconfirmed unpublished paper, that would be inappropriate on several levels, and that author could expect some feedback for acting like a Biscardi oops I mean a clown. You see parn, you just made my point right here. Simply claiming you have bigfoot samples would be making an unsubstantiated claim, and I seriously doubt that any proper review of data would occur at such a meeting. occasionally things presented in these meetings make it to the press. So what? stories about bigfoot do anyway, or hadn't you noticed? It would be perceived to be a person telling a story without the "published" paper with "scientifically verified" evidence to back it up. And additionally , it would be received about like this. abusing the function of the meeting and its members(or a particular journal) by using it as the platform for their unconfirmed unpublished paper, So getting the paper done ( with reputable peers) and getting it published is the only way it should be done prior to open discussion of the results. It is laughable that you don't concede this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I have lost track, I don't know if it was in this thread or another one where I brought up this point. Why would a bigfoot not avoid a device that might flash temporarily killing his night vision? It takes us about 20 minutes to completely get our night vision back once we are exposed to light. So how close and how directly must one be looking at a camera for it to blind your night vision? It's not like we have thousands of deer and raccoons stumbling around blindly in the dark after their encounters with game cams (unless I've missed a memo somewhere). Plus, as I mentioned in that other thread, the first time this happens to a bigfoot, whoever collects the memory card out of that lucky camera would have a full-on squatch portrait to share/sell/prove to the world there is such a thing. <Insert obligatory "awesome evidence exists but is being held back because mean people like Saskeptic ask to see it" clause.> There are also plenty of instances in which rare wildlife gets caught on camera during daylight or twilight hours and/or photographed at an angle without the eyes looking directly at the flash. There are many examples of this, but here is a nice collection. So yes, a bigfoot could walk up to a camera trap, take a direct flash in the face, and tell all of its bigfoot friends to avoid those plastic thingies that the humans tie to the trees now and then. But, we have no evidence to suggest this has ever happened because we have no portrait of a squinting squatch posing for such a photo. Also, would such a reaction really make sense in response to the temporary unpleasantness of the flash in your scenario? Why would the aversion be so great that no bigfoots even get surprised by game cams that could catch them from the side or behind or other oblique angle that wouldn't blind them (or during daylight for that matter)? (Again, I'm not even addressing the intense natural selection that would have to take place to allow bigfoots to detect 100% of the game cams out there.) It just seems to be an incredibly over-the-top response to a temporary annoyance like a camera flash for a creature alleged to hunt skunks in PVC pipes. A skunk-shot to the eye could blind a bigfoot forever, yet isn't that alleged PVC-hunting squatch one source of the DNA used in Ketchum's study? By the same token, a swift kick from a deer hoof could do a lot more damage to a bigfoot than a camera, yet people seem fully on board with bigfoots chasing deer. So again, while I appreciate the attempt to suggest some reason WHY bigfoots would have developed the ability to avoid game cams, I'm not convinced that temporary night blindness from the flash is a strong enough stimulus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Hello......topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) So again, while I appreciate the attempt to suggest some reason WHY bigfoots would have developed the ability to avoid game cams, I'm not convinced that temporary night blindness from the flash is a strong enough stimulus. Sas, it doesn't take experience with a game cam per se' to know that a sudden flash of light can cause temporary night blindness. We already discussed the number of game cams out there that hunters use versus the numbers used for sasquatch research. And there are unidentifiable blobs and a few other game cam pics that are debateable ( both day and night photos), it isn't like the potential pics aren't out there. Temporary night blindness would not be a strong enough stimulus for us to avoid game cams at night, but we don't live out in the wild depending on all of our senses to survive, the perspective might be different. The fact that they can evidently see better than us at night would suggest their eyes are a little bit different than ours, more rods than cones maybe? That would make a difference in how compromised their vision would be by a sudden flash of light from a device that they might associate with one of their potential predators. Edited January 11, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Hello......topic? I think multiple discussions in a couple of threads were merged Hoosierfoot. I raised the question of why bigfoots avoid game cams in post 1198 and have been responding to other folks since then. Lest I get accused of derailing the thread, my initial question about game cam avoidance directly addressed statements from Ketchum relative to "illusive" and "elusive" animals that was posted by an Administrator. Carry on. Sas, it doesn't take experience with a game cam per se' to know that a sudden flash of light can cause temporary night blindness. No, but that's the only to know that those little boxes sometimes flash a bright light. We already discussed the number of game cams out there that hunters use versus the numbers used for sasquatch research. So only those put out for sasquatch research can catch a sasquatch that happens to saunter by?And there are unidentifiable blobs and a few other game cam pics that are debateable ( both day and night photos), it isn't like the potential pics aren't out there. I've seen some; they're blobby. If they're blobs they don't matter for this discussion. We're looking for a clear photo, like the kind we get from all manner of other rare and elusive wildlife. Temporary night blindness would not be a strong enough stimulus for us to avoid game cams at night, but we don't live out in the wild depending on all of my senses to survive, the perspective might be different. The fact that they can evidently see better than us at night would suggest their eyes are a little bit different than ours, more rods than cones maybe? That would make a difference in how compromised their vision would be by a sudden flash of light from a device that they might associate with one of their potential predators. This doesn't address daylight photos, oblique photos, the lack of a clear bigfoot portrait, or the fact that other nocturnal animals don't seem to suffer any ill effects from game cam flashes. We have many examples of the same individuals photographed on the same evening and over longer periods of time. If the deer, raccoons, 'possums, etc., can handle the flashes, then why not bigfoots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Sorry if I wasn't clear; I thought I was.... I was referring to making unsubstantiated claims to the press, and using the meeting as a prop, acting as if the paper had passed peer review. That is frowned upon regardless of the subject matter of the presentation. I was NOT referring to the presentation of the paper to the meeting. You have erred in your interpretation, and thus in your conclusions. Some might see that as laughable. Edited January 11, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Do you suppose a BF rummaging thru trash cans at a camping area has ever run across some teenagers discarded magazine? Would it be impossible for them to form a concept of what a photograph is and link it to the little shiny things people in the outdoors are always brandishing about? Would it be possible that they have watched and listened to television programs through the window of a house? If they are nearly as intelligent as we are, what would they think of what they are watching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Saskeptic, I hope you are able to attend a Star Party sometime. Amateur astronomers are pretty damned adamant about keeping white lights completely off and away from the event after sunset. Of course, I'm sure you understand that, too. But still, I do hope you're able to attend such an event, sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 To even have a fair shake at solving that puzzle and making the correlation, they would have to see the photo come out of the camera. Otherwise, how do they know photos don't come from pinecones?, or if there is even a correlation, meaning the photos don't come from anywhere, they just are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) One of the problems Parn is what evidence to even review. Accept on faith for purpose of discussion I have some tangible evidence BFs know when their photo is being taken...if we include "photo being taken" to any appartatus designed to film or photograph, such as trail cams and other set ups. I tried; trail cam (covert IR- no glow), flood IR (again covert - no glow), IR sensitive to .0001lux ambient light full moons, IR sensitive ambient light no moon, Night Vision Gen3+ military grade, handheld FLIR and also handheld and remote set up handycams with varying blind cover (sometimes in my tent). I also employed many bait stations simulataneouls, some when only one camera available..and so on. In all about 25-30 trips most alone and each responding to the last set of data I "interpreted" based on learning as ones goes. I also, b/c quickly I knew getting a real measure of physicality, etc not for me alone, that some measure of smarts was all I could go for - and so used Morgan's, Goodall's, and my techniques with many other things going on- gifting spots, tracking, casting so on. ... .... AH: Sounds like you have extensive experience. There may be some misunderstanding of what we are saying and what we are meaning. when you say they know, are you saying that they know that an image of them has been captured, for humans to look at, and that they don't want humans to do that? or that they are aware that some device is nearby, and they are avoiding that device? Edited January 11, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 No, but that's the only way to know that those little boxes sometimes flash a bright light. They do not have to set the camera off to know it flashes, they can observe other wildlife or learn from past experiences of others if they communicate in some form. When were game cams invented and was there more "blob" pics when they were first deployed? Has anyone ever looked to see if the manufacturers got more complaints and if they were able to resolve the issues? So only those put out for sasquatch research can catch a sasquatch that happens to saunter by? That was my point Sas, there are many more game cams used for hunting than sasquatch research, there maybe many photos out there belonging to hunters that go unrecognized through misidentification or they just don't care to bring them forward. I've seen some; they're blobby. If they're blobs they don't matter for this discussion. We're looking for a clear photo, like the kind we get from all manner of other rare and elusive wildlife. Other wildlife have brains ranginging in size from walnuts to oranges , I'm sure some kind of higher reasoning is involved with bigfoot that other wildlife do not employ in regards to game cams just based on the described morphology. This doesn't address daylight photos, oblique photos, the lack of a clear bigfoot portrait, or the fact that other nocturnal animals don't seem to suffer any ill effects from game cam flashes. We have many examples of the same individuals photographed on the same evening and over longer periods of time. If the deer, raccoons, 'possums, etc., can handle the flashes, then why not bigfoots? There are daylight photos that are unidentifiable or questionable regarding sasquatch. A possibility for that is how their minds might be organized and how they might react to what they perceive as dangerous stimuli, as opposed to a lesser animal's instincts. If you take a bush man, he will notice more in his environment than you are I would being plunked down in a rain forest. These guys can see when a pebble has been disturbed and tell you how long ago it happened. I don't know that the intelligence factor equates here with bigfoot versus bush men, but obviously they surpass us in some respects just due to immersion in the outdoor environment. Reports come in where they get furious if you shine any kind of light in their faces. I can't say why that would be, but it makes the most sense to attribute that to something related to compromising their visual acuity or what they might perceive as a threat. I could be wrong, but there aren't that many reports of sasquatch seen at night during thunderstorms, be it by ride bys, on someone's property, or campers that maybe caught out in storms. That could be for many other reasons besides decreased visual acuity, but I had noticed it. Oh I did want to add another thought I brought up awhile ago having to with the settings of game cams. They are set for a certain range of temperature. If the thing passing in front does not fall within that range, it's my understanding that the camera won't trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 11, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 11, 2012 Not so simple, some are set for movement and some are set for temperature differentials, I think the above is a gross oversimplification. There are varying sensitivities which are adjustable on the best cams such as Reconyx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Someone should make a trigger fired by the sound of bipedal footfalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts