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: 1727
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: 1727
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: 88
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: 236
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: 88
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: 236
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: 88
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.

G Dog
Approved Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by G Dog » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:27 pm

I work on the presumption that those who don't succeed at one thing try another. Though it seems with the BF community in general they continue to bash their heads against brick walls. That is certainly anyone who is posting videos constantly on youtube of nothing trying to see something when nothing is there.

If putting trail cams on "game trails" doesn't work after what has been many years then why continue to do it?
It would seem to me that they do not follow "game trails". Why would they?
Sure sometimes they would need to be on one or walk down a road but it would seem to me that if this big guy is as switched on as everyone thinks he is and is as powerful as witnesses would suggest, then he/she/it can go wherever it wants to at any time.
To be an ambush predator, if that is what he is, then you don't ambush on a game trail. You stay off it and view what walks down it.
Now I don't pretend to know what exactly all the researches are doing, but the majority of game cams seem to be set on trails/pads.
If I were to set up cameras, which I may do one day, I would set them in places that aren't on trails but take in a view of an area where whatever is moving off trail needs to pass by.
I would think that getting a rock from the area you want to set the trap, hollowing it out with a grinder or similar, and placing the camera inside may be a decent option.
Or placing the camera high, in a tree pointing downwards. If it is in an animals eyeline then it will be seen. Take it away from the eyeline.
Take a chisel and hollow out an old tree and put the camera in there. Filter the lense, insulate as best as you can to remove the bulk of the electrical signals and hide in in the most natural of ways.
Whilst I do think that these fellows are bright and tuned to their environment, they can be caught out. It's just that many are going about it the wrong way and not thinking outside of the square.
If you think they know what you are up to then you need to change your plans. We are very predictable creatures humans. We are scared of the dark because we can't see anything, we like to walk on trails because it is easier, we are painfully slow and we are noisy.
We are easy to avoid. Especially in places that we humans frequent as we do the same things each time.

User avatar
Slats
Bronze Status
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Perth

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Slats » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:58 am

TrevorPeters wrote:
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.
Hey Trevor
Your predictions where correct!
The IR pass filters did reduce the amount of visible light to the naked eye but as as you predicted the reduction of illumination was very noticeable I would say around a 60-70% reduction in the illumination.
It didn't affect the view quality of the monucular (I wasn't using any extra filters on the monocular lens just on the illuminators) just the viewing distance as there wasn't the extra light.

I've since decided to just stick to my FLIR monocular and I have recently found out a hack on how to set it up to record which is handy.

Cheers
Nick

User avatar
TrevorPeters
Silver Status
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:06 am
Position: Believer
Location: Ipswich. Qld

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by TrevorPeters » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:28 pm

It is all a bit of trial and error when you are dealing with the low end stuff.
I've come to the conclusion that I won't be wasting money, even on a FLIR package.
Having seen what is possible with the latest tech, I can't bring myself to part with the $'s for something I know I won't be happy with.

If only I had the cash to buy a decent system. The pitfalls of being an unfunded amateur I guess.

User avatar
Slats
Bronze Status
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Perth

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Slats » Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:01 am

That's definitely it unfunded.....
I think the best lowest cost option for recordable night vision is the FLIR Ocean Scout TK at around $750 give or take depending on what deal you can find! You get up to 115m range and you can take stills and record video with a reasonable resolution.

Pertys80
Bronze Status
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 1:29 pm

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Pertys80 » Thu May 24, 2018 3:49 pm

Has anyone ever tried to make a DIY passive Night vision trail camera ?
Do away with the PIR sensors, and use ground or shock sensors perhaps..
The P8079HP Cascade intensifier tube is popular with DIY circles for a very good reason, they cost £202.00 ( http://www.starlightnv.co.uk/diy_night_scopes.html ) and can be comparable to Gen 3 NV available to the US public..
https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/DIY- ... 14/?page=1
images (59).jpeg
images (61).jpeg
If Yowies cant sense passive night vision, one would think you could spot one easily 20 metres away..
Their only down side is their size and weight, the box also requiring enough room to fit a camera, power source and accessories. The bonus about building the box is being able to insulate it like a faraday cage, only having the protruding camera lens and wiring for sensors.
If anyone out there has the know how to wire something like this up, I reckon I'd be willing to try build it.🤣😉
The only way we're gonna get a shot at out smarting them is thinking outside the square.. Hell, even use a child sized mannequin to bait them..🤣😂
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Simon M
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:36 am
Position: Unsure
Location: South Western Victoria

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by Simon M » Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:59 pm

G Dog wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:27 pm
I work on the presumption that those who don't succeed at one thing try another. Though it seems with the BF community in general they continue to bash their heads against brick walls. That is certainly anyone who is posting videos constantly on youtube of nothing trying to see something when nothing is there.

If putting trail cams on "game trails" doesn't work after what has been many years then why continue to do it?
It would seem to me that they do not follow "game trails". Why would they?
Sure sometimes they would need to be on one or walk down a road but it would seem to me that if this big guy is as switched on as everyone thinks he is and is as powerful as witnesses would suggest, then he/she/it can go wherever it wants to at any time.
To be an ambush predator, if that is what he is, then you don't ambush on a game trail. You stay off it and view what walks down it.
Now I don't pretend to know what exactly all the researches are doing, but the majority of game cams seem to be set on trails/pads.
If I were to set up cameras, which I may do one day, I would set them in places that aren't on trails but take in a view of an area where whatever is moving off trail needs to pass by.
I would think that getting a rock from the area you want to set the trap, hollowing it out with a grinder or similar, and placing the camera inside may be a decent option.
Or placing the camera high, in a tree pointing downwards. If it is in an animals eyeline then it will be seen. Take it away from the eyeline.
Take a chisel and hollow out an old tree and put the camera in there. Filter the lense, insulate as best as you can to remove the bulk of the electrical signals and hide in in the most natural of ways.
Whilst I do think that these fellows are bright and tuned to their environment, they can be caught out. It's just that many are going about it the wrong way and not thinking outside of the square.
If you think they know what you are up to then you need to change your plans. We are very predictable creatures humans. We are scared of the dark because we can't see anything, we like to walk on trails because it is easier, we are painfully slow and we are noisy.
We are easy to avoid. Especially in places that we humans frequent as we do the same things each time.
This is a thought-provoking post, and I agree with your points. I have zero field experience, but the idea of putting cameras higher up in trees sounds like a good idea, albeit an extremely difficult one to achieve. It's not like you can take a ladder with you into the bush - you'd need to be fit and you'd need some kind of tree-climbing equipment with you to avoid the risk of injury (like the stuff people use to prune massive trees and so on, where they put a strap around the trunk and attach themselves to the strap with ropes like a mountaineer). Not to mention how you'd secure the camera to the tree, which would be tricky to say the least. You'd probably need to screw it into the wood to make sure it wasn't going anywhere if the weather got rough.

It also occurs to me that a camera placed this way would be most likely to get some decent video if it were placed on a tree overlooking water. Many sightings have happened near water holes and the like, so placing cameras nearby might increase the chance of catching one of them unawares. If they're thirsty and perhaps focused on getting a drink and watching their immediate surroundings, they might not notice a camera far above them in a tree - or not see it as a threat if they did notice it, anyway.

Your ideas remind me of the stuff nature photographers have done (placing cameras inside rocks, etc) in order to get video of animals behaving as naturally as possible. It's a well thought out idea.

User avatar
ripperton
New Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 10:15 pm

Re: IR aversion theory?

Unread post by ripperton » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:26 pm

+1 on Yowies IR detection but as per Mike Patersons experience, Hominids can manipulate cameras and chips.
Mike has had images imposed onto the storage of his camera so if they can put images onto a chip they can take them off.
If a Yowie approaches a trail cam and sees something interesting bathing in its IR light like a freshly cooked chicken, it simply
walks into the field of vision of the camera triggering its record function, picks up the chicken and walks around to
the rear of the camera and deletes the video clip that was just recorded onto the chip then enjoys his tucker.

Post Reply