Mr. “Waylon” Johnson and myself both agreed to be interviewed by Nathan Reo during the Huntsville conference this past month. In these interviews we mainly discuss what got us interested in cryptid investigations, which is our first encounters. We hope you enjoy them.
These calls were recorded on the morning of Jan 5, 2018 at one of our research sites in Southeast Texas. We do not know what they are. We have tried to isolate the sound, as the roars are fain in the background. Please turn up your volume to hear them. There are four of them, and I indicate with the cursor on the spectrogram where they each are. There are no known animals in this region that make sounds like this, to our knowledge. Any help is greatly appreciated in identifying these calls. The raw audio can be supplied upon request.
I will be hosting a well known, out of state. personality for this conference. We will be in the field for several days, and will be attending the conference on Saturday. Please feel free to come and say “hi” if you see me. I would love to visit with you, and even possibly have you accompany me to the field where I will be staying for the week. I will post more updates as events develop over the trip.
Here are some initial audio recordings we captured while in our research area this past week. I will be posting more as I locate them from the field data. The first recording is of our usual unknown animal, and I am comparing it to an owl in the video.
This second recording features our unknown howl followed a little later by coyotes. It is possible the unknown is present with the coyote calls. However, whether we are recording an unknown coyote call, or an unknown caller among coyotes, is unknown.
This last recording is an example of interference the recorder picked up. Weather was good and sky was clear. This particular recording was in the early predawn hours. The crickets and other insects are constant, but notice the shift and tonal differences in the specifically defined pattern. Also notice the “warble”. This is the same recorder from the same night as the two above. Literally, the same recording. I would appreciate any recording specialists or engineers to suggest what this might be.
We spent a few days in the bush since our last blog entry. There are many things that need to be addressed.
First, we had a significant print find. The images are below. This print was found in a course sandy substrate in an area that had received significant rain for the last week. The print was old and had been rained on. The impression depth was near 2″, and it measured roughly 17″ x 8″ at the widest. It was located on a night hike, and was witnessed by 8 people including myself. It was in a remote forested location near a creek. It has obviously been rained on some, as it shows definite signs of erosion. I would estimate its age at about 3-5 days based on the rainfall at the time in the area. I do have a significant issue with the track, in that it has little to no demonstrated detail of the toes or outlines of them. I do know that several adult males in the 200lb range tried to impress the soil it was in, and could only achieve about 1/2″ impressions. There did appear to be a track way, but the forest soil was such that with ground clutter they were indistinct impressions, but stride averaged 5′ between impressions for about 6 total. I cannot rule out a hoax, based primarily on that I cannot explain the lack of toe definition. However, I cannot explain the depth of the impression, either.
The prior mentioned field cams failed miserable due to user error. I failed to pack the remote control. However, we did manage to get three operational and record a full night of “no activity”. However, the deep cycle batteries have proven to only operate for about 14 hours in the field. This is not sufficient for field operations, and so we are back to the drawing board with that project for the time being.
A little over a year ago I posted how we were experimenting with new cams for the field. Here is version 2.2. This is based on a wireless security came for a home or business. It operates on 2.4ghz Wi-Fi. It is HD, and has been heavily modified so that it uses only 940nm “Black IR” and sees clearly in a total dark field. Most all security cameras cannot see in total, open field dark, as they become so sensitive for light that they pick up a halo from their own IR illuminators. That issue has been solved with these design modifications. Furthermore, the 940nm black IR does not have a noticeable red glow like the more common 850nm IR used in cameras and game cams. This system is 12v, and has the operating time of approximately 20+ hours between charges. Each cam has its own power supply and remote control. They are silent, and are recording the entire time they are operating. They transmit their signal to a single hand held NVR with a built in screen. The cameras can transmit currently about 160ft. direct line of sight. They have the ability to daisy chain their connections to extend the string of cameras along a 640ft line of travel if needed. Their intended use is for night only, but can be operated in daylight, as well. With their “snake” mounts, they can be placed on any number of obstacles and blend in naturally. With intelligent use of cover and support, these cameras should be difficult to impossible to detect. They can be set to either record continuously, or record upon motion detection via software. The cameras have already been field tested, minus the snake mounts. Here is there setup as it is currently deployed.
The battery box is connected to the camera by a 15ft cord. The thick cable coming from the base of the camera is the snake mount. Pictured here is also the NVR unit on the left. It is powered by a battery in camp at this time, but can also be powered by vehicle 12v power. The other 3 cameras can be seen on the far right.
Here is an image of all four cams.
It is hoped that by placing these cams in such a way as to be facing away from the suspected likely avenue of approach, that the subject will pass by them without notice and into their field of view. Only when reversing direction would the subject actually face a camera. It is hoped that if this orientation works, a subject can approach a camp from multiple angles without actually detecting the IR lights, and not become aware of them until it has already entered the field of view. When attached to a tree or other object, it is hoped that the nature of these cams will be hidden enough not to raise alarm.
Further field test are coming soon. Results will be shared in another posting on this blog.
We recently captured this audio recording. I am using it as an example to show the possible distinctiveness of these calls as opposed to coyotes, which are also featured on the recording.