Jump to content


Photo

Sasquatch Trail Cam Avoidance Theories


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 TruthHunter

TruthHunter

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 81 posts

Posted 25 March 2015 - 09:55 AM

How did he detect it?  How?

 

That's a long way off. After the second pic, he's on to it.



#42 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 25 March 2015 - 01:33 PM

How did he detect it?  How?

 

That's a long way off. After the second pic, he's on to it.

 

Maybe it was near the edge of the range of the motion sensor and it didn't hear it before it walked in front of the camera.  I still think it's a good possibility that they can hear the audio frequency produced by motion sensors, which is beyond the human threshold of hearing, but perhaps not sasquatches'.  It did approach the camera, but only got a small portion in front of it.  The motion sensor sweep is directional, and I wonder if it avoids getting in front of it, and if that is the flaw with trail cams, and this camera just happened to snap it at the optimal range of the sensor.



#43 TruthHunter

TruthHunter

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 81 posts

Posted 25 March 2015 - 07:34 PM

I wonder if it is possible to find out what kind of camera was used. I believe most cameras

use passive detection that would produce no sound of that sort. The only thing in most

electronics capable of producing audio or even ultrasound are inverter powersupplies.

By working directly from battery no detectable sound should be produced. Consider

the range too.

 

 It is  possible that between

frames, he did glance in that direction.  Another possibility is that the trail to the camera was

accessed from that direction and the BF saw the trail and began to scan the area.

If the camera was pointed in the direction that the TC was approached, he likely stopped

and looked up the hill in the direction of the TC. 



#44 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 25 March 2015 - 08:35 PM

Most all motion sensors use a duel sensing system as a fail safe so that both must trigger to set off the camera.  I don't believe "any" use a passive alone.  I know this from an article I read while researching this topic.  If you read post # 9 of this thread it explains the different types of sensing used in motion detectors.  Here is a quote from an article I linked to in post # 9.

 

"Many modern motion detectors use combinations of different technologies. While combining multiple sensing technologies into one detector can help reduce false triggering, it does so at the expense of reduced detection probabilities and increased vulnerability. For example, many dual-tech sensors combine both a PIR sensor and a microwave sensor into one unit. In order for motion to be detected, both sensors must trip together. This lowers the probability of a false alarm since heat and light changes may trip the PIR but not the microwave, or trees may trigger the microwave but not the PIR. If an intruder is able to fool the PIR or microwave, however, the sensor will not detect. Dual-tech sensors are only as strong as their weakest link." 

 

 ...............................................................................................

 

Of all the sensors only the PIR is passive.  All the others emit sound beyond the hearing of humans.  The microwave sensor sends out infrasonic sound waves.  Given sasquatches ability to use infrasound I would assume it can hear beyond the range of human hearing.  Recordings made of sasquatches talking show them producing sounds both above and below the human threshold of hearing.  This is one of the reason I favor the noisy motion sensors for why they usually avoid getting in front of trail cams.  They might be especially leery of infrasound since they use it defensively themselves, and this could explain why they will approach trail cams out of view of the front of the cameras, since the active emitters for the motion sensor is directional, sending sound waves out the front of the device.

 

They might even hear the ultrasonic motion sensor.  Reading the article even those sound waves reflect back as infrasound.  So, they might be hearing the motion sensors on trail cams.  What may have occurred on this cam that captured pictures is maybe it was near the extreme range of the motion sensor and didn't detect it before walking in front of it.



#45 TruthHunter

TruthHunter

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:20 AM

"All the others emit sound beyond the hearing of humans. "

 

Only ultrasonic systems produce sound. In 1968, I worked for a burglar alarm

company. Motion detection was kind of cutting edge at the time. I remember being 

able to hear the sound emitted by one of the units we evaluated. No one else was able to hear it.

I didn't take time to investigate whether the unit was lower than spec. The upper limit of human hearing

is about 20,000 hz. Ultrasound motion sensing typically uses 25K or more. Sensitivity of the at the upper range 

is greatly attenuated. There are animals that hear and communicate at these higher frequencies such as mice.

I would be surprised if the BF could hear significantly higher frequencies than us. Lower quite possibly.  Significantly

higher, unlikely. Certainly NOT from a very low power emitter  at ~100 yards

 

 

 "The microwave sensor sends out infrasonic sound waves."

 

???  i don't believe you understand how it functions. Electromagnetic radiation at ~30 Ghz ( 30 billion vibrations per second) is produced

in brief pulses. Then a reciever gets the signal bounced off objects and detects any shift. NO accoustic signal is produced. The electronics

would be very inefficient if any part moved enough to produce sound, especially infrasound.

is emitted.  In brief no known biological system can detect it.

 

Active infrared can be a problem in that IR leds produce a small amount of visible light.

 

You see, I am extremely skeptical of any supersensory detection of the cameras

 

I believe they are good trackers with a seemingly supernatural ability to see the disturbances we make plowing through the woods.

Our cameras look like eyes to them. They don't want to be seen by us. This BF wasn't afraid of it, but went to considerable lengths

to avoid IT looking at him.

 

Sometimes they don't seem to care if we see them. Mostly they do. I can't think of a single situation where they took a relaxed

attitude toward an adult seeing them. 



#46 SRA Andy

SRA Andy

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 724 posts
  • LocationMpls Metro, MN, USA

Posted 26 March 2015 - 02:13 PM

One of our patrons did an extensive test on many different trail cams. Using a high frequency mic, he was able to record the sounds they make above our hearing and study them.

 

Most were VERY noisy.  Some were noisy all the time. All were noisy some of the time.  The best were the Reconyx cameras which only made noise as they started taking pictures. There were none under $600 that didn't make noise in detection mode.

 

I suspect that in this sequence, the camera started making noise when it triggered, the squatch moved (very fast I'll note given the speed at which these cameras take bursts), then circle around to check it out.  I bet is was a high-end camera that is silent until it detects movement.

 

By the way, this is an excellent set of photos.


Don't Believe, Know.


#47 SRA Andy

SRA Andy

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 724 posts
  • LocationMpls Metro, MN, USA

Posted 26 March 2015 - 02:21 PM

"All the others emit sound beyond the hearing of humans. "

 

Only ultrasonic systems produce sound. In 1968, I worked for a burglar alarm

company. Motion detection was kind of cutting edge at the time. I remember being 

able to hear the sound emitted by one of the units we evaluated. No one else was able to hear it.

I didn't take time to investigate whether the unit was lower than spec. The upper limit of human hearing

is about 20,000 hz. Ultrasound motion sensing typically uses 25K or more. Sensitivity of the at the upper range 

is greatly attenuated. There are animals that hear and communicate at these higher frequencies such as mice.

I would be surprised if the BF could hear significantly higher frequencies than us. Lower quite possibly.  Significantly

higher, unlikely. Certainly NOT from a very low power emitter  at ~100 yards

 

 

 "The microwave sensor sends out infrasonic sound waves."

 

???  i don't believe you understand how it functions. Electromagnetic radiation at ~30 Ghz ( 30 billion vibrations per second) is produced

in brief pulses. Then a reciever gets the signal bounced off objects and detects any shift. NO accoustic signal is produced. The electronics

would be very inefficient if any part moved enough to produce sound, especially infrasound.

is emitted.  In brief no known biological system can detect it.

 

Active infrared can be a problem in that IR leds produce a small amount of visible light.

 

You see, I am extremely skeptical of any supersensory detection of the cameras

 

I believe they are good trackers with a seemingly supernatural ability to see the disturbances we make plowing through the woods.

Our cameras look like eyes to them. They don't want to be seen by us. This BF wasn't afraid of it, but went to considerable lengths

to avoid IT looking at him.

 

Sometimes they don't seem to care if we see them. Mostly they do. I can't think of a single situation where they took a relaxed

attitude toward an adult seeing them. 

 

Anything using electricity as a power source can put out high-frequency sound (Ultrasound). You are right in that Infrasound is difficult to produce and very unlikely.

 

I also wouldn't characterize the ability to hear into the "Ultrasonic" ranges to be "super sensory", since it is all hinged on the limitations of humans.  It is only Ultrasound because we lack the ability to detect it. A great many animals can and do hear in these ranges very well so it is hardly a super ability.


Don't Believe, Know.


#48 TruthHunter

TruthHunter

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 81 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 05:28 PM

I recently stumble across the EMF blocking suits that

are reputed to desensitize many animals to human presence.

Could this explain whats going on with cameras? If so, thoroughly

shielding a camera in a faraday cage might be the key.

 

http://www.hecsllc.com/



#49 Tom47

Tom47

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 25 April 2015 - 08:36 PM

I recently stumble across the EMF blocking suits that

are reputed to desensitize many animals to human presence.

Could this explain whats going on with cameras? If so, thoroughly

shielding a camera in a faraday cage might be the key.

 

http://www.hecsllc.com/

I suppose that would be one way to eliminate the possibility of emf radiation from the camera electronics alerting the wildlife to its presence.  You'd have to leave a small opening in the shield for the lens and probably also for the PIR motion detector and also ground the shield.  If creatures still avoid the camera, the remaining culprits (aside from them simply seeing the unit) would be acoustic emissions and/or (at night) visibility of the IR illuminator.



#50 TruthHunter

TruthHunter

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 April 2015 - 06:56 AM

"If creatures still avoid the camera, the remaining culprits (aside from them simply seeing the unit) would be acoustic emissions and/or (at night) visibility of the IR illuminator."

 

It seems possible that the suits block whatever it is about our bodies'

that alarms animals. On the video at the link below, the turkeys see the man

but aren't alarmed.

http://www.hecsllc.c...sense-em-signal

 

There is another vid where a deer walks right up to 

the camera man and hunter, then slowly walks away.

 

It doesn't remove the need for stealth, but greatly reduces it.

If the camera lens is set back in nearly all the incident emf would be

blocked, though it would narrow the field a little perhaps.

 

Both the suit and the camera shielding are worth  follow up, imho.

I wonder if the suit would block "zapping".



#51 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 26 April 2015 - 01:12 PM

I wonder if the suit would block "zapping".

 

The suit would not block "zapping."  Infrasound penetrates objects because the sound waves can move through the spaces between molecules, unlike higher frequencies.  That is how infrasound causes various disturbances in living creatures.



#52 TruthHunter

TruthHunter

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 81 posts

Posted 08 May 2015 - 12:21 PM

"The suit would not block "zapping."  Infrasound penetrates objects because the sound waves can move through the spaces between molecules, unlike higher frequencies.  That is how infrasound causes various disturbances in living creatures."

 

While the suit might not(even probably not) block "Zapping", we mustn't forget that Infrasound is only a theory. Its the best we have, but its

not proven.

In fact one argument against it is that sound usually comes with higher harmonics, that in the case of Infrasound can be heard.   

 

Actually I believe a emf blocking suit might be a good test of the theory. If it doesn't block zapping, it doesn't prove it, but is consistent with Infrasound.

If emf suit does block then it disproves the Infrasound theory.



#53 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 May 2015 - 09:36 PM

To many it's not proven that sasquatches uses infrasound.  To me personally it is proven since I've been hit with it several times, and all the founders of the SRA can attest to being hit with it multiple times, sometimes very severely.  I'm just about to go into the field again, and there's a chance I'm about to experience it again.  

 

Many of the effects people claim to experience are what is known to occur from studies on infrasound.  



#54 TruthHunter

TruthHunter

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 81 posts

Posted 09 May 2015 - 02:14 PM

I am not here to argue, but when you have experienced BOTH lab infrasound and "Zapping" then we can begin to tell if its the same or different.

 

I really didn't want to take the discussion this direction

 

I am more interested in if the HECS type emf blocking suits have any positive value in interacting with BF.  Do they fear

humans for some of the same reasons other animals do? Are these factors blocked by emf suits?  Do animals rely on this

6th sense so much that they discount other senses? When you see animals that are very shy like deer walk right up to cameramen,

you wonder, is there a cognitive dissonance happening? Are they only relying on this 6th sense to detect threat? It is quite possible that

animals will learn to avoid humans who wear suits by learning they are a threat?

Will use of suits back fire with BF? 

If there is a emf blocking that will cause them to linger, be photographed and interacted with us, we should like  to know.

 

conductive fabric:
http://www.lessemf.com/fabric.html  



#55 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 10 May 2015 - 12:40 AM

Sorry, I may have misunderstood and I don't know anything about EMF suits to say what they could or couldn't do anyway.   This would be a good topic in the infrasound thread.

 

The idea of EMF blocking suits and their association with altering animal reactions sounds interesting.



#56 SRA Andy

SRA Andy

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 724 posts
  • LocationMpls Metro, MN, USA

Posted 13 May 2015 - 06:52 AM

On at least one occasion that I got "zapped", it was accompanied by a very low rumble.


Don't Believe, Know.


#57 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,277 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 14 March 2017 - 02:24 AM

http://cryptomundo.c...ews/bf-cameras/

 

Could sasquatches be hearing ultrasonic noise from electrical devices and that is a cause for them detecting trail cams?  The following was in a cryptomundo article Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 25th, 2008

 

"I would like to answer some questions that have been raised concerning cameras and if they make high pitched sounds that humans cannot hear. The simple answer is YES!

 

Many types of electronics devices such as surveillance cameras, tape recorders, camcorders as well as other kinds of electronics produce measurable sound in the ultrasonic range. The ultrasonic sounds are produced at the electronic component/circuit board level. Even small electrical components soldered to a circuit board can transmit their ultrasonic vibrations through to the circuit board they are mounted to causing the circuit board to vibrate and produce ultrasonic sounds. I have demonstrated this process at Eric Altman’s East Coast Bigfoot Conference as well as Don Keating’s Ohio Conference. "






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users