The contents of this page are copyrighted by the Curious Cryptid, all rights reserved.
The information is made freely available for research purposes in the practice of open science.
That makes it available to you, it does not make it yours; link and/or cite if you want to use the information.

This is an ongoing project started 2020-08-22, last updated 20-10-12 to create the page.

Purpose and Justification

Problems with Game Cameras

Limitations with Audio Only Observations

Breakdown of the Project

Purpose and Justification

    The research group that has shared the area I am observing¹ has determined that the use of cameras to observe the subjects is not effective. I have observed limits to audio only observations, but find no practical alternative to being there for all observations.

    The group has asserted the subjects are curious and do investigate things, however it is challenging to demonstrate this well with audio-only data collection. There is a need for multiple sensors to measure activity.

    If these sensors could work together it may be possible to add stimulus to the equation and create stimulus-response experiments.

    I am convinced that there is activity prompted by calling out to the subjects². It is unclear what is causing the activity from a strictly scientific standpoint.

    This platform would potentially provide information that could help identify what entities are behind the activity observe so far by only sounds in the darkness...

1 - RR1 is the name abstraction for research region 1

2 - See the Research Region 1 recap for 2020 for supporting evidence.

Problems with Game Cameras

    They are occasionally presumed stolen as they can disappear if not heavily secured - trees have been cut to remove them, providing evidence it was not the subjects...

    They may have limited efficacy in pushing the subjects into certain paths. However, they will sometimes be redirected - or even destroyed - if taken too far. Cameras tightly strapped to a large tree have had their straps slipped around the tree; this typically requires a great deal of force. It would be easy for a human to loosten the strap and move the camera, but that is not typically the apparent approach - instead they have been force-slipped around the tree without loostening the strap. Evidence for this is damage to the bark and to the strap.

    There are speculations the subjects are sensitive to some kind of emission from the camera. The research group has not bothered to have camera emissions tested - and I submit this is not necessary³. The group has been experimenting with EM-absorbing fabric to shield the cameras, but no subjects were recorded this year as part of that experiment. One can conclude from this only that the subjects were not recorded; it is impossible to say why this is the case.

    When an inescapable camera trap has been set up, key cameras have been damaged or redirected to allow access to the area under scrutiny. Animals don't do this, and people usually don't care that much.

    In general, game cameras have been useful to identify mundane animals in the area. They have demonstrated some unexpected things - such as ravens taking apples.

3 - I freely admit my presumption that the subjects are genetically quite similar to humans. No paranormal observations have been made by the group. No existing mammal shows the ability to electromagnetically detect electronic equipment, so without precedent of observation this is not a speculation requiring evidence at this time. It seems far more likely that as hunter-gatherers they are good at spotting things that don't seem to belong...

Limitations with Audio Only Observations

    I have been presented with evidence of the subjects investigating parabolic microphones left to make accoustic observations. What I have heard is movement in the leaves of brush within the field of view of the parabolic. I have been told there are more dramatic recordings of the microphone being rushed, pushed, tapped with sticks, and so forth. I have no doubt these exist, either. I simply find what I have heard - and heard of - unconvincing.

    I have heard recordings of vocalizations made in the area. I have no doubt they are genuine, as presented. I do not expect they are of a mundane origin (coyotes, owls, etc.) but also cannot prove this with any reasonable certainty.

    My own recordings made in the specific area where the parabolic recordings I have heard were made match those from the parabolic. However, I am not convinced the subjects are responsible for the movement sounds I did record.

    Using multiple recorders a short distance apart, I found sounds recorded by one matching those from the parabolic are not recorded by the other just a short distance away. When I walk into the area, my footsteps and talking are recorded by all withint a given radius.

    From this I have the impression the movement is small and local - such as a squirrel in the brush. I have not been given reason to believe a large biped was responsible for any of that evidence.

    I want to place recorders more accurately and in such a way as to be able to triangulate sounds, but that is another project.

    .

    .

    .

fn - ... Link ... .

Project Breakdown

    I think a self-discovering ad-hoc UDP network using WiFi would be workable for this. This allows adding nodes with new functionality as more is learned.

    The research group asserts that the subjects will pick things up and investigate them. I think the system needs an IMU to detect orientation changes and report them. A 9-axis IMU would help determine if the unit is picked up, and how it is handled. For example a raven would peck at it and may try to roll it around - this would result in jerky movement; In contrast a curious biped may pick it up and turn it about - a smoother movement. If recording audio one might get an idea of the entity handling the unit.

    I would also use passive IR (pyrometer) motion sensors. These could also be reported over the network. With the IMU this could help determine what direction each sensor is pointing.

    I think a small unit like a Raspberry Pi Zero or maybe even an ESP32 would be useful for this. Each unit would rebroadcast first-time received packets. This would automatically relay new data, allow monitoring of all units in the network, but cut down on chattering by only relaying a given message once. The protocol would need to be able to keep an index of recent messages - but I am getting into detailed design here, a bad habit...

    Extensions of the project could include units that also have some stimulus built in. For example a PIEZO beeper to create a cricket-like click sound, or an IR light source. When one sensor detects activity, another could click or beep - maybe even several seconds later to make the relation between touching this thing and hearing that thing more obscure.

    The research group asserts confidence the subjects can see infra-red. This is presumed based largely on game-camera avoidance. Stronger evidence may be apparent if a light turns on nearby several seconds after a sensor has been set back down and we hear a reaction timed with the IR light source coming on.

    This might also be used to control non-standard cameras. Perhaps they simply recognize something with an eye as a camera. A pinhole may get past them; and with a separate light-source we might record if they get mad at the concealed camera, or the light source.