Sasquatch Night Ops

[MIB]

22 minutes ago, hiflier said:

may cloud the elimination process

 

And I will also respectfully disagree.   You don't have a basis other than your pre-existing assumptions for inclusion or elimination.    That will never gain you anything you don't already assume you know.    Gotta step back far enough to see what might also be relevant before you can learn anything you don't already know.    

 

Bottom line .. if the eyes do indeed produce some sort of glow which is not merely reflection, then you should be able to make some guesses about the sort of receptors needed to make use of that "glow."    Overlooking that angle reduces your chances of arriving at any correct conclusions about the receptors.  

 

There is decent empirical evidence in the body of reports to suggest that they see a) deeper into infared, b) deeper into ultraviolet, and c) in color .. which generally are not found together .. than we do.    It is very possible that a larger eye structure provides physical space for all of the specialized structures to exist simultaneously rather than selectively as our smaller eyes require.     I suggest that projecting our limitations onto them, without considering the possibilities that larger eyes present, is .. naive.    We don't have anything but our possibly flawed assumptions to back that choice up with.   Since we are already confronted by things here that seem to defy expectations, further trapping ourselves within those expectations is not very insightful.   

 

MIB

[hiflier]

18 minutes ago, MIB said:

You don't have a basis other than your pre-existing assumptions for inclusion or elimination.    That will never gain you anything you don't already assume you know.

 

Does that make me different than anyone else? But at least I'm trying to bring science in to bear on the issue because there is proven science to be had. I certainly don't need to assume a tapetum lucidum as a cause for eye reflection because that already exists in animals. 

 

22 minutes ago, MIB said:

Bottom line .. if the eyes do indeed produce some sort of glow which is not merely reflection, then you should be able to make some guesses about the sort of receptors needed to make use of that "glow."    Overlooking that angle reduces your chances of arriving at any correct conclusions about the receptors.

 

Nope. That would end up having me make assumptions is a worse way than you initially stated with my "pre-existing" ones. You should start a thread and go down the "make some guesses" path on your own.

 

30 minutes ago, MIB said:

I suggest that projecting our limitations onto them, without considering the possibilities that larger eyes present, is .. naive.

 

And you think I'm doing that? Seriously? I don't. There are reports of eye reflections, there is such a thing as a tapetum lucidum, many other animals have such eye structures and the eyes of those animals reflect light. Animals in nature don't have eyeglow. The limitations aren't mine, they're science's which is all I'm going by. It's all I CAN go by if I want to stay with what we know. So my bottom line to you is start your own thread.....on eyeglow. You might even be able to figure out how projected light coming out of an eye finds it's way back into the eye without blinding it, or cancelling out what is being illuminated? Good luck with your science on that.

 

48 minutes ago, MIB said:

Since we are already confronted by things here that seem to defy expectations, further trapping ourselves within those expectations is not very insightful.

 

Not trying to be insightful OR have expectations. I'm simply using known science to see if the tapetum lucidum shoe fits the Sasquatch as well as other known animals. You mentioned infrared and ultraviolet and color are not found together. That may be true in this case as well which is why I mentioned those light frequencies early on as part of this exercise. It's like I've always said, individually everything needs to fit the picture and make logical sense when added to the whole. Science is usually pretty good at doing that which is why I rely heavily on it so that I'm not stuck just having to "make some guesses." 

 

[bipedalist]

As I remember the Green database did find the color green to be a high rank color perhaps in the top three or four.  It seems like if eyeshine colors observed can be manifold and eyeglow colors follow same and can be manifold, that there is science to be investigated just not in this thread as you so clearly requested.  Personally, I haven't revisited the phenomena for quite a while so I am not interested in starting a new thread; others may have at it as they so desire.  I am interested in any seasonal or nutritional explanations for sure so will follow the thread as it develops. 

[Catmandoo]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

You might even be able to figure out how projected light coming out of an eye finds it's way back into the eye without blinding it, or cancelling out what is being illuminated? Good luck with your science on that.

 

How about weird science? I do weird science and try to do weird science every day.

First, throw out reflectance. Go down your animal inventory list, including yourself because humans have eyeshine. Look at the shape of the eyes and shape of the pupils.

Round eyes, elongated eyes. Round pupils, vertical slits, horizontal slits. How fast do animal pupils react? Humans have eyeshine and our pupils react very fast. Have you been the victim of 'red eye' in flash photography?  The 'pre-flash' was developed to minimize red eye. The pre-flash emits enough light before image capture to make our pupils react and close down.  Forget reflectance.

 

Using human vision to make wild ass guesses about Sasquatch vision is speculative. Human color perception is subjective.  I am game.  Primate evolution is assumed. Night vision, scotopic, is without color and done with rods. Day vision, photopic, with color, is done with cones: red, green and blue.

Rods have peak sensitivity of about 498nm, in the green-blue region.

Red cones have a range of about 500nm--700nm, with peak sensitivity about 564nm--580nm.

Green cones have a range of about 450nm--630nm, with peak sensitivity about 534nm---555nm.

( hint hint hint notice I am not listing the blue cone ).

Photons hit the retina and electrical impulses are created. There is a delay between the impulses and they do not arrive at the vision processing areas simultaneously. The delay in signals is 10s of milliseconds but it all comes together to make images. Cones and rods operate in an 'on-off' scenario to send signals.

There are several different channels used to send signals. Red-green use one channel. Blue-yellow use a separate channel. The rod channel, black and white, is the luminance channel.

Our visual signals are pulsed. This brings up 'critical fusion flicker frequency'.  Anyone have trouble with flickering flourescent lights? 

I have not seen projected light.  I am aware of red and green light.  Is the light pulsed? If pulsed, and the rate is higher than the critical fusion flicker frequency then humans would see a continuous light.

I am thinking that the rod cones aren't firing when the projected light occurs. If there is over lap, the luminance channel is separate from the red-green channel. Alternating visual signals and light emitting signals.

 

The retina can generate its own flourescence. The deepest layer of cells of the retina are called 'retinal pigment epithelium', ( RPE ) and contain flourescent compounds.

 

Weird science never rests.

CAT 

I reviewed emails.  So far, time of illumination is less than a minute.

Edited January 3, 2022 by Catmandoo
text

[ShadowBorn]

Catmandu

You make allot of sense there. If their eye's happens to catch some light at some point during their movement. Then that light will reflect later in time at some point in time. The issue is, can this creature turn tis on or off on it's own? or do their eyes just start to glow on their own. I have a picture of a creature that has a possible creature glowing blue eyes. It was taken from a flashing game camera. Now it's eyes over power the flash with blue.

 

Now understanding fluorescent compounds and that maybe possible the chemicals storing that light. 

Quote

Fluorescence is the emission of light by a substance that has absorbed light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is a form of luminescence. ... Fluorescent materials cease to glow nearly immediately when the radiation source stops, unlike phosphorescent materials, which continue to emit light for some time after.

   These creatures may or may not be possible to control their eye function. It may also be possible that only few of these creatures understand what they may have with their eyes. As Hiflier has pointed out in the biggening of this thread about the different chemicals in the color of flames. Which I will repost.

Potassium chloride: Makes a purple flame

Magnesium sulfate: Makes a white flame

Strontium chloride: Makes a red flame

Copper chloride: Makes a blue flame

Lithium chloride: Makes a pink flame

Copper sulfate: Makes a green flame

Sodium chloride: Makes an orange flame

Depending on what they might have in their systems. Might show in the color of their eye shine or when they do glow. But this is just an assumption on my part since I am ot a doctor or one who understands how chemicals react within a biological body. But the three chemicals to look at would be Magnesium, Copper Chloride, Strontium and Copper Sulfate. Now again I am not a chemist. But seeing what I am seeing sound like these creatures might be eating allot that are rich in these chemicals. Again I am just assuming.

[NCBFr]

21 hours ago, hiflier said:

Anyone feel like a bit (or a lot) of speculative Sasquatch science? Sasquatch night ops is a pretty interesting rabbit hole that can cover many things such as night vision, possible infrared capabilities, eye shine colors, and general navigation with respect to moon phases. Much has been discussed over the years about any one of these elements but do those different elements add up in any way to gain any scientific insights that may nail down how the creatures manages to maneuver at night? Or do things in the dark woods like find rocks or a stick and tree to do some tree knocking for instance?

 

So far folks have talked about such capabilities as single subjects but, if taken together, do all of those discussions shed any light on the Sasquatch's ability, if it's so much like us and the other Great Apes, to do what it does and how? For myself, I don't think any one feature (NV, infrared, etc.) can answer the question as well as finding some common kind of ground that links the various vision advantages together that allow the Sasquatch to maneuver in what we may see as an impossible task for us without our artificial lights or other devices. All thoughts and inputs are welcome. In the end we may end up with something that isn't so speculative?

 

 

Ahh, one of my favorite subjects.  I was turned on to their eyes/vision when my daughter saw one at night when I was on a business trip.  When she told me the details the next morning I asked her to draw a picture of what she saw.  The actual picture is lost but it basically looks like what a 12 year old non-artist picture of a BF would like like, basically a big brown/red blob with indistinct features and one exception; glowing golden eyes.  The one universal truth if you get beyond they exist issue is that they have vastly superior night vision than humans and that their eyes can either glow or reflect a vast quantity of light at different colors.   While there are probably hundreds of reports of eye shine/glow, here is my favorite.  

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=59450

 

I will add more later as I got to get to work.

[wiiawiwb]

I've seen red eyeshine twice, both at night at the same location a year apart.  The first time was with a sasquatching buddy and the second time was with him and another buddy. Absolutely, positively not an owl as the horizontal distance of the swaying was too wide. Moreover, the red eyeshine moved about going left and right, up and down trying to avoid the flashlight's narrow beam and even peeked from behind something.

 

Definitely not eyeglow.

[Madison5716]

@NCBFr, that's not far from where I had a strange experience outside of Mansfield, MO, in 2011. We were in a not-open-for-the-season yet campground a mile or two outside of the Laura Ingalls Wilder House, and the only one's there. Something growling stalked around our tent all night long. Scariest night of my life. There's weird things in those Missouri woods!