Jump to content

Yowie Infrared


VAfooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

A large bear in AUSTRALIA is a whole other cryptozoological issue. I believe their largest native land carnivore is the dingo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Nipissing said:

A large bear in AUSTRALIA is a whole other cryptozoological issue. I believe their largest native land carnivore is the dingo.


I believe this Angela claims she shot it here... so Australia and Yowie needs to be crossed off the list.

 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mississippi/about-forest/districts/?cid=stelprdb5209589

 

Its either a bear or a Bigfoot in Mississippi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha; my bad! Still, I think it's a huge reach to say it's a bear regardless; the legs just aren't right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nipissing said:

Gotcha; my bad! Still, I think it's a huge reach to say it's a bear regardless; the legs just aren't right.


This is why it’s better to carry a Bear tag and a rifle! No need for debate. If it’s a bear? Tag it. If it’s a Bigfoot? Call King 5 news or the local university’s biology dept. Case closed!

 

Even FLIR is completely up for debate..... this is just one more nail in the coffin of photos and video concerning cryptids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, norseman said:

Its either a bear or a Bigfoot in Mississippi.

 

I think that it is an arbor sexual, disrespecting the tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

@VAfooter, nevermind 

 

I can't delete this lol sorry.

Edited by Madison5716
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 3:39 PM, norseman said:

This is why it’s better to carry a Bear tag and a rifle! No need for debate. If it’s a bear? Tag it. If it’s a Bigfoot? Call King 5 news or the local university’s biology dept. Case closed!

 

Good idea!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

Good pic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 5/9/2021 at 1:55 AM, Explorer said:

Thanks for sharing.

 

Very intriguing thermal imager video captured indeed. 

I look forward to see their 2nd visit to do size comparisons at same location.

 

I am curious to know what thermal imager they used that sent the video image via Wifi to their smart phone?

 

Those of us who have the older FLIR units have to download the video to a laptop or desktop via a cable in order to review it.

I usually won't know what I captured until I get home and download video to my desktop and the use the VLC Media Player software to review hours (or days) of video.

Many folks in BFRO bring laptops and download their FLIR unit's video on the field so that they can review during daytime.

 

Technology just keeps improving and making field research more efficient and effective.

 

Edited to share that after looking at the video again, noticed that the Thermal Imager they used with Wifi capability is a Guide brand.

I am not familiar with these, but below is a link to the Guide description on a unit similar to what they used.  I am not sure if this is the same.

 

https://www.guideir.com/product/detail/id/48.html

 

 

 

 

Hi - I don't have a thermal unit but I do have some questions about its use in this particular instance. I’m hoping that you (or anyone else with knowledge/experience with FLIR) can help out.

 

I understand that you are not sure if this - https://www.guideir.com/product/detail/id/48.html - is the particular model used. However, the images displayed in the promo show how amazing this latest generation of cameras are. They can reveal a great deal of information – particularly it shows variation of temperatures within the targeted heat signature and also within the surrounding terrain so that features such as trees and foliage are clearly visible (1). A comparison pic provided by AYR for a newspaper article also shows variations of temperature within both the subject and surrounding terrain (2). If the camera-user knows where he/she was standing when filming then it would be relatively easy to then identify the exact spot any recorded subject was standing simply by identifying and lining up prominent features (tree trunks, branches, foliage, ground, etc) from the FLIR video with those exact features in the daytime. Correct?

 

Images (1), (2), and (3) - https://ibb.co/gymmCkG

 

Yet the FLIR video which captured the “Yowies” displays little to no variation of temperatures within neither the subject nor the surrounding terrain (3). The heat signatures of the subjects are white-hot while the surrounding environment is effectively invisible – a sea of violet with no distinguishing features whatsoever. That makes it very difficult (but not impossible) to later identify the exact location of the subject.

 

Q1. What settings on a thermal unit would have to be adjusted in order to replicate super-hot heat signatures whilst making features of the surrounding terrain invisible?

 

The AYR video shows the novice cameraman accidently adjusting the colour display (flicking from colour to black-and-white and back to colour) while trying to zoom in on the subject yet the overall quality of the recording remains the same – super-hot subject and no detail of the surrounding environment.

 

Q2. Is it possible to accidently adjust the camera’s settings while filming to record so little detail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thermal camera was set (intentionally/unintentionally) to record as little information as possible about the heat signatures and surrounding landscape. That makes it very difficult – but not impossible – to identify the exact spot the “Yowies” were standing. Fortunately in this instance, the human-like heat signatures do reveal some important details of their location. These details become “visible” because the heat signatures are behind them at various times – partially obscuring the heat signatures. These are:

1) a tree trunk (width unknown) with a distinctive forked branch, 2) a trunk of a thin sapling, and 3) some sort of ground foliage.

 

https://ibb.co/MPtvdWt

 

The next picture compilation shows a photo of the spot identified by A.Y.R. to be the exact location of the human-like heat signatures. Indeed the location has a sapling, ground foliage, and a tree trunk. However, there is no distinctive forked branch coming from the tree trunk. Furthermore, when the FLIR image is compared and aligned to the day photograph it shows the tree is not in the correct position – ie the tree trunk (without distinctive branch) is far too close to the sapling.

 

https://ibb.co/K2GHC2Q

 

Conclusion: the spot identified is NOT the location of the heat signatures. A.Y.R. went on to estimate the height of the human-like heat signatures to be 9-11ft in height based on the estimated height (no actual measurements taken) of the foliage. However, those estimates are also incorrect because they are based on incorrect location data.

 

If the correct location was to be identified and exact measurements taken (instead of simply being estimated) it would provide a far more accurate indication of the actual size of the figures in the thermal. I suspect that the human-like heat signatures would then be very human-like in size.

 

I have contacted Dean Harrison about these discrepancies but all I received in reply was a torrent of abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing. I can't rule out a hoax. 

Reminds me of the  SB thermal that I believe was hoaxed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...