Wow, Does This Explain Bigfoot Eye Glow?
Our good frined Sharon Day over at ghosthuntingtheories.com posted this great article written by bigfoot researcher Karl Sup about the science behind eye glow, and how bigfoot's eyes might possibly actually glow in the dark. It's a great article, and definitely worth checking out:
"One of the reported traits of numerous encounters with Sasquatch peoples includes an observation by the witness of eyeshine and/or eyeglow. I myself have witnessed both events firsthand more than once, and remain innately puzzled by the latter.
Each instance of observed eyeglow was observed in total darkness, with no moonlight. While the starlight may have played a factor in the observation, the same observations occurred on cloudy, dark nights as well. The muted but glowing, iridescent color appeared to fluctuate between a red-orange-yellow in a very organic manner. In contrast, each instance of observed eyeshine was in correlation to a direct application of infrared (IR) light to the subject(s)."
To read the article, head on over to ghosthuntingtheories.com by clicking here.
alpha and omega
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to get my teeth into this... It is my opinion that nobody is putting together as good a research as people like Karl Sup and Sharon Day at this time.
DeleteOutstanding.
You are a newbie! You don't remember Sharon hanging round here and trading alliances for a chance to out troll this site even. Young man, your time would be better spent if this is your end product.
DeletePossible but unlikely, I still think its the same issue we have a humans and red eye.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Average Joe!
DeleteIt's not. Next question?
DeleteKarl Sup's just about as sharp as they come, and I'm very lucky to occasionally have an opportunity to work with him in another forum. Thanks to Matt K for the post. M
ReplyDeleteEverything that Karl Sup is writing about on bioluminescence is starting to gain traction in this field when not that long ago would have been dismissed outright. It is being discussed by several others that have witnessed the eye shine in absolute darkness, no moon, and cloud cover that eliminates any star light source. Something is going on and this has to be talked about.
DeleteChuck
I disagree Chuck. I think all researchers should shut up and let a few loud mouths die on the vine, the 12 year olds go back to baseball, and ratings sink for these bad shows. Too much bad info out there, too many fools..
DeleteBigfoot, like the little paranormal forest people, have the capability of turning their eyes on and off, or anywhere in between. They can use it for identification while invisible. For instance, they could run up to a human doing call blasting in the forest, and while invisible, they could turn their eyes on to see whether that human could do the same thing and identify himself as being "one of them".
ReplyDeletebigfoots have night vision and hunt @ night so folks dont get a good sighting - that why most folks think they see a bear but ist really a bigfoot
ReplyDeleteDUDE ... DUDE... its getting HOT in HERE
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that Sharon describes Karl as a "theoretical researcher". I guess that sounds better than "guy who makes stuff up based on scant unscientific evidence which can't be verified in any way." (Field biology isn't a theoretical field of study, it's an empirical science. He's not a theoretical researcher.) I guess you could call him a conjectural researcher if that wasn't an oxymoron. Perhaps 'Biological Guesstimator' might fit?
ReplyDeleteI also note that Karl doesn't know the difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis' himself. (You're not "theorizing", Karl. You're a long long way from being able to claim that.) I guess it doesn't matter because his ideas aren't based on scientific evidence and they aren't testable so they fail the criteria for being a hypothesis anyway, so I guess he can call them whatever he wants and it won't matter.
I'll give him points for at least reading and referencing a few articles on tapetum lucidum (not that any of that was relevant to the final idea he wanted to put forwards) but his section on bioluminescence was sketchy at best and shifty at worst. He made sure to mention humans using artificial lights for communication purposes but he somehow failed to point out that absolutely no mammal species (or indeed any terrestrial vertebrate species at all) have been shown to have bioluminescent capabilities. (There's a handful of fish species which have bioluminescence and all the other known species are invertebrates.) There's not much point in invoking vestigiality when you need to backtrack at least 350 million years down the phylogenetic tree before you can show a link to a known species which displays the trait unless you have some actual compelling scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. 'People report seeing something which we suppose is eyeglow' is nowhere near good enough.
A bioluminescent nictitating membrane would also be an incredible disadvantage for a nocturnal creature since it would wreck their night vision and render them temporarily blind if they ever used it. Karl's idea that their pupils might contract "to reduce the amount of light entering the eye" doesn't alter that - try sticking some penlight torches under your eyelids at night and see whether you feel that would be of any evolutionary benefit.
In conclusion: Karl used lots of big words and references to try to put his idea over but in the end it's about as compelling as "Maybe they have magic eyes" or "Perhaps they stick lightning bugs up their nostrils" or any other unsupported explanation. If you don't have verifiable scientific evidence as a starting point then trying to form hypotheses is conjecture at best and pseudo-science at worst. It's a fun mental exercise but you can't take it seriously and you can't call yourself a researcher on that basis, 'theoretical' or otherwise.
^ In an alternate conclusion: It looks like the anti-Bigfoot/paid scoftic crowd, brought Karl Rose out of retirement here, because this is the kind of long worded diatribe that he likes to write, even though he has publicly admitted that Bigfoot exists.
DeleteI thought it was a great response.
DeleteFish have bioluminescence. Thus rendering the lengthy diatribe above, a complete waste of time of the person that wrote it, as well as everyone that read it. But on the bright side, we know for certain that, "closed minds" are not in danger of extinction.
DeleteFish bioluminesence was specifically covered in the "lengthy diatribe", the part about "you need to backtrack at least 350 million years down the phylogenetic tree before you can show a link to a known species" talked about how it's not relevant to Bigfoots in any way. Unless you want to claim that a giant lemur mated with a fish and Bigfoot was the result? I don't think even Melba Ketchum would try to push that barrow.
DeleteCrapology 101.Gotta be eye-glow.Let's go w/dat!
ReplyDeleteI'm wit yu homer!
Delete