IR aversion theory?

A Think Tank of Techniques and Technology.
Post Reply
JungleJazz
Approved Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:20 pm

IR aversion theory?

Unread post by JungleJazz » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:17 pm

Hi everyone, this is my first post.. But have been reading HEAPS of new (and old) threads on here.

I have been reading a lot about the uncanny ability to detect and therefore avoid Infared cameras. Now, I have absolutely no field experience at all so I may be pissing in the wind here but here goes:

Ages ago there was a thread about covering our human scent to mask our presence (interesting read) and one very experienced guy (jo blose maybe?) wrote a massive response about how you could never fully mask our scent from such an intelligent creature..
Then he said kind of as an afterthought that our cameras, mobiles, gps etc would be emitting high frequency noise that we just can't hear.. And I had a lightbulb moment!

What if all the Infared cameras (or specifically the beams shooting out of them) are producing some sound out of our range of hearing that they can detect? Obviously because they have been known to be able to avoid the specific area the camera points at it leads me to think the Infared beam may also be a directed sound wave..?

Are ya still with me, does this make sense?
Can any techno wizards out there think of a way to minimise/mask this?

Thoughts in general?

User avatar
Dion
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Position: Paranormal and Cryptozoology Researcher
Location: Passing through the ethereal

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Dion » Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:41 am

Hi there JungleJazz

Welcome to the forums

Your right there is a tendency for these beings to pick up on electrical equipment,

In regards to trying to minimize or mask this, I am not sure there is much that can be done, they just seem to know their surrounds all to conveniently IMO.

There are thousands of people all over the world trying different things to catch them out, and they all fail miserably,

I dont think its a scent thing, more a sense thing.

They know your intentions.
“ It is stated because my studies have lead me to think that these creatures could very well be a diluted remnant of the Nephilim. ”- Ron Morehead

User formally known as chewy

forestguy
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:29 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by forestguy » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:25 am

Dion wrote:...they all fail miserably.
Well that's a matter of opinion - eg. I don't think you could say Rusty is failing miserably.
"What is reported is different to what is remembered which is different to what was seen which is different to what was present."

User avatar
Dion
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Position: Paranormal and Cryptozoology Researcher
Location: Passing through the ethereal

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Dion » Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:34 am

I admire Rusty greatly he does an excellent job at it, better than anyone I have seen, and without putting words in his mouth, I am sure Rusty will freely admit he doesn't have the evidence that he would like.
“ It is stated because my studies have lead me to think that these creatures could very well be a diluted remnant of the Nephilim. ”- Ron Morehead

User formally known as chewy

forestguy
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:29 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by forestguy » Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:59 pm

Agreed, but that's a long way from failing miserably.
"What is reported is different to what is remembered which is different to what was seen which is different to what was present."

User avatar
AussieBushman
New Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:32 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by AussieBushman » Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:12 pm

JungleJazz wrote: What if all the Infared cameras (or specifically the beams shooting out of them) are producing some sound out of our range of hearing that they can detect? Can any techno wizards out there think of a way to minimise/mask this?
Dion wrote:Your right there is a tendency for these beings to pick up on electrical equipment, In regards to trying to minimize or mask this, I am not sure there is much that can be done, they just seem to know their surrounds all to conveniently IMO.
Dion is correct, they have a tendency to pick up on electrical equipment, however it doesn't even have to be on or have batteries in it for Yowies or any other creature to spot it. I worked on a deer farm and the deer spot the trail cameras first with sight, then scent and then they hit the road or take off quick smart, batteries or no batteries.

I believe that if deer can spot our equipment easily, the Yowie would be way ahead of them, I believe that the Yowie is a perfectly trained observer of his own environment and he can spot anything that is out of place or foreign, just like if someone put a strange object inside your home or on your property.

So Dion is right again, in that there is no point trying to mask or hide anything as the Yowie knows his surrounds way too well. Having said that, personally I avoid using IR light unless I have no other option, so if the Yowie can actually see it I don't scare him off while I'm trying to film or photograph him.

AussieBushman
"But I'll tell you what hermits realize. If you go off into a far, far forest and get very quiet, you'll come to understand that you're connected with everything"

- Alan Wilson Watts

User avatar
Slats
Bronze Status
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Perth

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Slats » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 am

Hey guys
IR illuminators and torches do emit some visible light and IMO a yowies eyes may have developed over time more rods to cones to assist them to see better in the dark. I believe that they may be able to see the visible part and not the "invisible" part above 850nm and in the 900nm range.

Now, if you take your TV remote (unless it is Bluetooth) they use infrared to send the signal. However, if you where to look into the end of the remote you can't see any light. This is done using an IR pass filter. IR pass filters are designed to block any visible light and allow the targeted range i.e. 850nm and up to "pass" through filter making it invisible to the human eye at least.

I am currently waiting for a couple of these filters. One for my night vision monocular and one for my IR torch. So I'm very interested to see the results in the field.

Cheers Slats

User avatar
TrevorPeters
Silver Status
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:06 am
Position: Believer
Location: Ipswich. Qld

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by TrevorPeters » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:06 pm

One for my night vision monocular and one for my IR torch. So I'm very interested to see the results in the field.
Predictions:

1. Significant reduction in illumination by IR Torch
2. Noticeable reduction in view quality from monocular, possibly from reduced scene illumination and/or attenuation of incoming energy within its detection range. Would need to see the specs to comment further.

User avatar
Slats
Bronze Status
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Perth

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Slats » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:46 pm

TrevorPeters wrote:
One for my night vision monocular and one for my IR torch. So I'm very interested to see the results in the field.
Predictions:

1. Significant reduction in illumination by IR Torch
2. Noticeable reduction in view quality from monocular, possibly from reduced scene illumination and/or attenuation of incoming energy within its detection range. Would need to see the specs to comment further.
Specs for the filters are in the photo's.
My NV is a Yukon Spartan NVMT 1x24 (gen 1 intensifier tube) it's IR illuminator wavelength is 805nm so I'm expecting some considerable loss here.
My torch's wavelength is 940nm and is zoomable so I think it should be ok.

This gear is mostly aimed at improving my ability to see at night along with my FLIR monocular (only good to about 200m) none of them record however my action cam does have an IR lens for it and can pick up the IR light for intersting things at night.

My thoughts along this line are to increase "covertness" whilst in the field at night. I'm not trying to film at distance at night and I'm curious as I have not read anywhere else at this stage, if the filters work in relation to the IR light aversion.

Cheers
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
TrevorPeters
Silver Status
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:06 am
Position: Believer
Location: Ipswich. Qld

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by TrevorPeters » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:50 am

It is an interesting topic for sure.
I'm thinking that IR aversion seems circumstantial and they would exhibit the same aversion to any white flash camera or 'new' man made object placed in their territory.
It is circumstantial because they exhibit nocturnal behaviour so we turn immediately to the best solution for night viewing and in comes the IR illumination.


I admire your tenacity. I also have an old Gen 1 Russian imager but I hate the poor resolution and don't use it when I go out - I just found it annoying.
Personally I think they hear me and smell me before I even get close to hitting them with the torch.
If you can ever afford a Gen 3+ or higher binocular viewer (maybe UK made with no ITAR restrictions) then it might be well worth it.

User avatar
Slats
Bronze Status
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Perth

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Slats » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:24 am

I agree with you completely argree in regards to hearing and smelling first but it would be interesting to see if it works, one can only speculate and hope to get that close to test the filters.

I reckon I would be in big trouble with the boss if I was to get a gen3 monocular, the resolution one the one I've got seems reasonable but it would definately give you a headache if you were to wear it with a head mount the distortion on the edges of the image would mess with you.

I'll see if I can get some comparison images once I have the filters.

Post Reply