Eye Shine of Bigfoot and Other Animals
This compilation of information on eye shine was begun due to reports of red-eyed bigfoot creatures across the U.S., and specifically in Horizon City, TX; rocking the red-eyes (throwing rocks) by kids in the desert near Horizon City; and an account of a boy and his father near the Hueco Mountains (same area as Horizon) being around the campfire and witnessing high/tall green glowing eyes pacing around them and making clicking type noises (the witnesses felt they were Chupacabras). I have compiled what eye shine is below, and which animals have red and green eye shine, as just as importantly, which animals DONT so a comparison can be made.
NOTE: My personal notes
added in below (sometimes in the middle of a quote from a website or other source) will
always be in maroon.
Cats and many other nocturnal animals have a mirror-like layer at the back of their eyes (tapetum of the retina which helps them see better in the dark) that reflects background light like tiny searchlights. Humans don't have this tapetum lucidum layer, so red-eye photos are something different. The red color is a reflection of the many blood vessels that nourish our eyes, like the pink color of our lips. We only notice this in flash photos because the camera flash is bright for such a short time, 1/1000th of a second or less, so our pupils don't have time to close down or constrict.
lucidum" literally means bright carpet, a nice phrase. A Web search on
that phrase turns up an abundance of interesting info. Here are some different animal
species (and links) that I've found listed as possessing a tapetum lucidum for
enhanced night vision. It's interesting how this adaptation appears in such different
ANIMALS EYES SHINE THESE COLORS:
(taken from many online sources/charts
and also personal eyewitness testimonies)
LEGENDS/PARANORMAL SIGHTINGS OF
MOTHMAN: RED www.anomalist.com/features/motheyes.html
AD: You can easily check out our best quality 642-883 dumps prepare you well for the
real Actualtests.com exam. You
can also get success in real exam of six sigma yellow belt
training with the quality 200-101
braindumps and ccie voice ICMA .
Apes eyes do not have eye-shine but see in color
In primates the
prosimians (primitive primates such as the lemur and aye-aye) exhibit such a feature as
the tapetum lucidum. While the great apes do not. Likewise many other animal species in
far ranging groups show this characteristic, to most it will be most familiar in a
household pet like the cat. Even humans, who do not have this tapetum, do possess a
limited "eye shine" that can be seen in red eye images in some photographs.
Now the question
of whether or not such a creature as Bigfoot, if it does in fact exist, could see in color
comes up at times as well. The problem here is that color recognition comes down to
chemical properties in the eye as well as the presence of the photoreceptor cones.
Additionally all mammals that posses color vision have a small indent on the retina called
the fovea in which these cones are organized.
As was mentioned
previously the cones are made of three distinctively different types of pigments,
erythrolabe, chlorolabe and cyanolabe. Each it has been thought correlates to a color
blue, green or red. These pigments react through chemical functions and create the color
vision people see. The lack or inhibition of one or more of these pigmentation cones
causes the various forms of color blindness. The strength of the light also plays a part
in the color recognition, for example a light wavelength of 5000 to 5500 angstroms
generates a green color, while one of 6750 to 7000 creates the red color. Factored in as
well are the elements of hue, brightness and saturation that enhance or diminish the
intensity of color depending on the viewing conditions and distances.
The color vision
ability can be drawn to one thing, if a fovea is present than the likelihood of color
vision to some extent is also present. This is not a hard and fast rule, but a good guide.
For example the great apes posses a fovea, and in al likelihood have a form of color
vision, while the douroucouli (Aotus trivirgatus) or the night monkey from South
America does not have a fovea (or any cones for that matter) and so cannot posses color
That is the
crucial point. Color vision is much more specialized for a daytime existence, for at night
the ability to see color is minimized due to insufficient light. To adapt to the
insufficient light some species have the tapetum lucidum to allow for enhancement of the
light. Despite this adaptation, many of these species also adapt enhanced hearing and
smell as well as varied vision (like enlarged eyes and varied positions of the eyes on the
As for a
connection to Hominology subjects, at this time, no steadfast attribute can be applied.
It can be fairly safe to say that if Bigfoot exists it is a form of primate (this includes
the possibility of a relic humanoid), and to acquire this tapetum would make it an even
more amazing discovery indeed. However, the possibility of color vision is more likely
to occur. If humans and great apes possess color vision, to some extent, but do not posses
a tapetum lucidum, and it is extracted that Bigfoot is a type of primate akin to a great
ape or human, then the correlation to these primates can be loosely made.
answer though as to what kind of vision these creatures may have cannot be described as of
yet. A specimen would be needed, and to identify the vision capabilities it would have to
be a relatively new specimen with the eyes intact, as the information needed cannot be
preserved in a skull, only on the living tissue.
NOTE: The nitty gritty here is that humans and apes do
NOT see in the dark due to a lack of the tapetum (reflective retina), however,
bigfoots eyes have REPEATEDLY been documented to have red reflective eyes which
points to them possibly having the taptetum so they CAN see well in the dark (many
sightings of these animals do occur during the dark when they are roaming around). Human eyes only shine red when a flash from a
camera hits them at the right angle. This is
due to blood vessels in the eye and the flash hitting before the pupils have time to
Lloyd Pyes site on hominoids: http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Earliest.htm
A BIT OF MEA CULPA
Imagine this scenario: Instead of 50+ Miocene apes, there
might have been only, say, a dozen or so, with regional variations classified as 50+
different species due to the scarcity of their fossils. Of those dozen, maybe six were
quadrupeds and six were bipeds, with the bipeds being substantially more intelligent, more
active, and more wide-ranging than the down-on-all-fours genetic kin. All twelve passed
the millennia in their own time-tested fashions and continue living alongside us humans
today. None went extinct.
For as radical as that scenario might sound at first, the
facts as they exist make it far more logical and probable than the current anthropological
dogma that all Miocene apes were quadrupeds, and that despite living in stasis for
millions of years, dozens inexplicably went extinct and left only the six we classify
today. And please dont harass me with this old saw: If hominoids are real, why
dont we know about them? Why dont we ever see them? Where are they?
Where are their dead bodies? People who ask such questions are simply ignorant of an
astonishing array of valid research and hard data that exist but are ignored by mainstream
science because it doesnt conform to their current dogma.
We do know about hominoids; we do see them regularly; every
single day at some place on the planet some human encounters one or more of them.
They are out there living by the thousands
by the hundreds of thousands in order to
maintain breeding populations. But because these facts represent such a severe diminution
of our knowledge about the world around us, and equally diminishes our sense of control
over everything around us, we are far more comfortable rejecting it as a possibility. When
the day comes for some lucky soul to finally cram this blatant reality down our
collectively unwilling throats, we will all get up the next day and go to work as we have
every day prior. But we will never be the same after that day, not ordinary people and
especially not mainstream scientists.
Lloyd Pyes email 8/23/03:
You already have a copy of my book, EYKIW. Just read
Part III again, the part about Hominoids. The Zana story is in there, as is much more you
need to know about the hominoid field in general.
Colored eyes (red, blue, green, yellow, etc.) are all
common to nocturnal animals (which we are not) because they have a film in their retinas
that we do not have. I can't recall it at the moment, but it is well-known and there.
Assuming hominoids are indeed nocturnal (which all evidence indicates they are), it would
be unusual to have a nighttime report NOT include a mention of brightly reflecting eyes.
Most sightings are of single creatures, but numerous
ones have been of multiples. It is ASSUMED, but not yet proven past doubt, that they
travel about in small family groups, and that when you see one you can assume that others
are within an easy shouting distance in case of need. That's why an individual one should
not be shot by an individual human. Others nearby will come to its rescue and probably
harm the human.
No, no connection between hominoids and UFO's. Others
will argue this point, but that is my take on it. I think they are straight animals, plain
and simple, who have inhabited this planet for 20 million years or more.
from Lloyd Pyes book Everything You Know is Wrong:
Craig Woolheater (Texas Bigfoot Research Center):
The percentage of CREDIBLE sighting
reports of more than
one creature at a time is very small.
We don't have very many
at all. I know that John Green, who has
compiled over 4000
sighting reports, has stated that it is
a very low percentage.
I have just sent an email requesting
that info. I will pass it
on to you when I get a reply.
The most common color that is claimed
for eye glow or
shine is red. The next most common
color would be a yellow-
Humans are Primates in the same family:
Lemurs, lorises, galagos, pottos, tarsiers, monkeys, apes and humans are all primates. They all belong to a group of mammals that scientists have classified in the taxonomic order Primates. This order can first be divided into two sub-orders to illustrate the division between prosimians and the more familiar "higher primates" (i.e. monkeys, apes and humans). The suborders and their respective families are as follows:
of Higher Apes:
History of Research
The study of nestbuilding behaviour in the higher apes is based on roughly 50 years of field research and about 200 years of observation.
Construction, form and types of nests
The higher apes are nomads. In search of food the animals daily wander over a more or less clearly defined home range and rest at "customary used nesting places" (Harrison 1969). Every night is spent in a different place. This is the source of a routine for nestbuilding behaviour. All three species of higher apes from a certain age (3-4), every night build themselves at least one new nest. On average this means about 10-15 thousand nests over the life of an ape, a virtual tower of 11 to 16 times the height of the Eiffel-tower in Paris. A really remarkable life-opus!
The construction process is rather stereotyped. In trees the animal stands or squats on two legs, with its arms it pulls about three thick branches towards its body, bends them, presses them down under his feet and weaves them into a stable round platform of about 60 to 80 cm in diameter (fig. 1 + 2). Then thinner branches and twigs are woven into a wreath. Finally the platform is cushioned with twigs broken off and with plucked leaves. Uneven spots are levelled by knocking with the back of the hand. The whole procedure lasts about one to five minutes depending on the animals abilities. At the end the constructor lies comfortably down in the finished nest and falls asleep. High up in the crown of the tree it safely passes the night until the first light of the next morning.
There are ground-nests which may take the form of grass-, foliage- or twig-nests close to the ground or other constructions in underwood bushes or bamboo-groves reaching heights of 2-4 m (fig. 3 + 4). The former in general are simply made by heaping up materials in a circular form, whereas the latter are stable constructions standing vertically in space. In bamboo groves the heavy animal hangs on the bamboo stalks by his arms, bends them down and weaves them essentially in standing position into a stable framework. After checking his work the animal climbs up and lies down for sleep or rest.
The differentiation between tree- and groundnests is extremely important, because these two environments are entirely different in regard to the animal's movements. In the crowns of the trees the apes move vertically by climbing and horizontally by swinging (arboreal locomotion), in contrast with terrestrial locomotion. The animals use the stable surface to move on on four or two legs - in the latter case like man - and have a quite different access to plants etc. than in the vertically structured environment. In regard to the physical evolution, in particular to the erection of the body the hands freed from use in locomotion, the distinction of arboreal and terrestrial environments in the habitat is of great importance, as is the transition from one to another in evolutionary theory. But it has been little noticed that nestbuilding is represented in both environments and that it shows different technical characteristics. In the case of the tree nest some strong horizontal branches are enough to support the platform. Stability is provided by the physical conditions of the tree. Variation is limited by a limited situation. In contrast to this the materials offered on the ground are of much greater variety and this variety is accessible. The groundnests are therefore more differentiated in terms of construction and form. They vary from heaped types on the ground to woven structures on bushes and to stable and vertically standing structures. This typology can be interpreted in terms of an elementary evolution. The bamboo tower certainly resembles human structures. Its stalks are joined by weaving and tying knot-like slings and it shows tectonic qualities, e.g. standing vertically stable in space. Its foundations are naturally provided by the rooted stalks. It definitely meets two criteria generally thought as of human origin: the stable triangle in a vertical constructive frame. Should these 'discoveries' have to be attributed to the higher apes?
In terms of physical anthropology this type of terrestrial nest raises questions of far-reaching significance for the human evolution. Is this first constructor about to rebuild himself physically with his routined nestbuilding behaviour? Did this constructive routine help to develop the precision grip of the hand as a tool? Did this constant control of weaving and cushioning activities sharpen the eye for close work? Did an increasing capacity of remembering reliable ways of construction influence the development of the brain? Did the routine activity of vertical constructions lift the body of the constructor into the vertical position?
The functions of the nest
The relation of the nest to the life of its users is very intimate. Its functions are remarkably complex:
Protection: The nest primarily gives the security of a protected and stable place during the nocturnal phase of the apes' daily life. In this phase the animal is not fit for locomotion; in the dark the three dimensional vision of the higher apes is practically inoperative. With their platform the animals not only protect themselves against predators, as is often maintained in literature. Perhaps more importantly they bridge the darker half of their existence during which they are not adapted to their environment. And they also satisfy the physical need of their great bodies for recreation in a horizontal position.
Home: Van Lawick-Goodall has described the nests of chimpanzees as "sickbeds". Animals shot by hunters use their last energies to build their last nest which keeps them from falling. The nest is the last place of refuge.
Mother-child-nest: The nest of mother and child physically reproduces the development of the mother and child relation. Apes spend about two to three years in the nest of their mother. During this time the child gradually learns to build a nest. The long close contact to the mother's bodily warmth contributes to a sense of safety in the nest.
Settlement: The nests of a group form an elementary settlement in which individual characters and social relationships are expressed by the relative distance and location of the nests (fig. 6).
Orientation: The durability of the nest artifacts is remarkably longer than the factual use, which in general is only one night. Nests left behind by the animals last two months on average. Unfortunately their semantic function in the system of the apes' orientation has not yet been studied.
Without doubt these five functions of nestbuilding are deeply woven into the life of the animals in the wild. It also becomes clear that the real significance of the nest in the everyday life of the higher apes becomes obvious only, if the nestbuilding behaviour is studied using constructive, spatial and functional criteria, that is to say with the instruments of architectural theory.
(c) Sharon (Eby) Cornet 2011