Leaderboard

CM - Maybe. The Pleistocene began about 2.6 MYA, prior to that, no land bridge (known) for a very considerable amount of time. Through the Pleistocene, we had "many" times with bridges and many without. There should be fossils wherever bigfoot arose. Compare the situations between Afrcia/Asia and North America. In North America there are no known great apes so the bones of a great ape ancestor 2 MYA should stand out like a red nose at a tea totaller picnic. By contrast, in Africa/Asia, we have many hominids / hominoids running around in that same time period. It would be much more probable that "one more" could be lost / unnoticed in the "background noise" of all of the others. Going a little different direction, think about Native American lore, think about a timeline for DNA drift that still allows for very infrequent, frequently fatal, barely viable pregnancy. If the timeline is longer, there's no cross at all .. human and chimp. If the timeline is shorter and the crosses are highly viable, the populations do what seems to have happened in our past a lot (why we have Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA among other things) and somewhat re-merge when they meet again. What's the window for an ancestral-to-both species splitting giving the results we seem to see? Lets say one of those descendants was found in some numbers in Siberia when the other started to push back in crowding them across a land bridge but not following ... yet. We'd wind up with sasquatch having some 10s of thousands of years, but maybe not much more, to develop in isolation, diverge from the characteristics of their kin like Yeren and maybe Almasty (who knows, even Woodwose :)) in the old world, before we show up again using the most recent land bridge ... or maybe most recent 2. I think if they had been here in N.A. a greatly longer time, there'd be a fossil record. There should be anyway barring deliberate effort not to leave one. The Lovelock Cave and Mound Buiider remains, if relevant, are tens of thousands of years too recent. Just speculating aloud and the speculation will change twice by tomorrow as I factor in some other thing I've overlooked. We've got ourselves an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum. MIB

Revolutionize, no, not at all. Internal audience vs external audience. The uninvolved public's attention might be piqued. Ooh look big wow shiny ... for 20 seconds 'til something draws their ADHD attention. That's all hype for the superficial. To an internal audience, people who are educated and fully engaged in the topic, it is merely one more data point among many to consider. "Revolution" is shock and awe. You don't shock and awe a professional. MIB

We use MP3 file format because it allows you to control the bit rate in addition to the frequency sample rate. This has great impact on file size, thus recording time and storage needs. Not sure if the model you use allows this, I use a Tascam DR-05 ($99). IMO, we don't need CD quality to record a BF... I thought about the sounds that are possible to capture: 1) Howls / Screams: You're not recording it for an opera performance and the sound is continuous. I guess the high frequency could get up to 10 kHz being very open minded. The bit rate can be lower because the sound is continuous and long, you will not miss it. 320k bps is completely unnecessary for this. 2) Speech: The recommended settings for human speech are only 6 kHz @ 45k bps. 3) Infrasound: It has a frequency from 0.1 Hz to about 20 Hz. One important thing to know is that any compressed digital recording (i.e. MP3), when played back, can reproduce about half the frequency in the recording. ( Nyquist-Shannon sampling rate theorem). So a recording @ 44.1 kHz will only be able to playback at 22 kHz. For our purposes, this is more than enough. CD quality is 320k bps @ 44.1 kHz I use MP3 with 192k bps @ 48 kHz sample rate, and even that is way overkill, I often think of reducing the bit rate lower. Hope this helps.

I mean, who knows CM? Nothing is off the table until it is, I say. Our imaginations are not deep enough to envision it all. That is what reality is for!

CM...indeed. One thing our expanding encyclopedia of knowledge confirms for us, over and over, is the universe is far weirder than we always previously imagined. I guess we want to believe our discoveries will reach a point where the weirdness will abate, or at least not come at this seemingly accelerated rate. Not gonna happen, I think, and if anything we'll see the accumulation of weird and startling knowledge start to accelerate even more as each new discovery piles on top of another. There will always be those who embrace the weirdness, and those who resist the news. Paleo Anthropology, where it intersects with DNA analysis is probably one of the areas where the startling, weird news will be the most surprising and delightful (or the scariest, depending on your perspective). Posed right athwart this intersection looms the idea of a man/ape, ape/man, giant lemur, mutant alien, proto-human, hyper-evolved or evolutionarily retarded....take you pick from the menu of what you think BF is...whichever you put your money on, you'll probably still be astounded by what the actual answer turns out to be, and how many questions the answer raises in turn.

Revolutionize? Maybe, maybe not so much... it will broaden perspectives in at least most of the lines of anthropological study, not only physical/evolutionary, but cultural anthropology may be proffered a glimpse into what might prove a parallel to either our early social developmental stages, or those of our future, and the potential for linguistic studies of non-sapien hominid language systematics with a creature so similar to us yet obviously distinct would be unprecedented. Of course, within the field of physical anthro, such discovery would certainly shake things up a bit, in that it would demonstrate in no uncertain terms that our dependence upon the fossil record providing the proof of our pathway is misguided due to the incomplete nature inherent in its formation. On the flip side, it may well motivate a lot of folks to get back to diggin' in attempt to fill in some of the now glaring holes of what was seen as at least a graded road, so to speak.... And yes, biologists will be in on it, physiologist s, neurologists, parasitologists, ethologists, well..pretty much all of those ologists...should it prove telepathic, that'll bring in the psychologists, and if they're transdimentional you know the physicists will be clamoring to join the party...oh, and the government agencies may show some interest at some point as well, although they may hold back, at least publicly, in that it will seem likely they invested the most effort, time and resources in preventing the "discovery"and wish to avoid recriminations and explanations...

As near as I can tell, the field of human anthropology exists in a constant state of revolution anyway. I don't believe it needs a Sasquatch confirmation to become a more dynamic field, at all. Which is a good thing. Maybe, just maybe, those that practice in the discipline are starting to realize the so-called standard model for the linear ascent of ape to man was only as good as the next fossil hominoid species that was excavated... which now seems to be happening on a regular basis. There is no "done" in this field, or at least my prediction is we are a very long way from having the all the answers, and might never. One of my standard gripes about scientists is they know better than to scoff at the idea of BF, and of those scientists, human anthropologists should know best of all. Now, the biologists? Oh yeah. They will probably get the biggest jolt of all, and I'd line them right up behind the anthropologists as ones who should be the least surprised, but will probably be more so than experience would predict.

PG, that duplicity of man is not something I discount, ever. Still, there is a myth afoot here, I grant you. It is the myth of the omnipotent hoaxer. At least BF has its own iconography, history and lore to legitimize it (and centuries of natural history and scientific theory to quite plausibly explain it). As for the O.H., whoever he/they may be? His/their apologists offer nothing except the usual a la carte menu of clichéd implausibility, and the solid absence of physical evidence like that offered to the contrary. I'm not taking a jab at you personally, but there is a whole contingent of people out there that find satisfaction in this view. (I think their own comfort they find in this pat explanation is not to be discounted either)

As a type specimen proponent I do see the ISF mindset folly that since the creature is not proven? It's a myth. Therefore all evidence associated with the myth? Is a hoax. I think unfortunately someday our descendants will have complete control of this planet. Every ant, every blade of grass will probably be counted and inserted with a gps transponder. But until that day comes we as a civilization have not catalogued every living entity on earth. I believe there are things yet to be discovered...some small, some big. We still have undiscovered tribes of humans living as they have for milenia on our last remote places on Earth. And Sasquatch isn't that weird in the larger scheme of things. No where does it violate any laws of nature or evolution, and it could possibly be represented in the fossil record in some parts of the world. It's not a three headed fire breathing Hydra by any means. So boiled down to brass tacks? It's probably never going to stop being a myth, unless people go look for themselves. And if it's all a hoax? Why bother?

But PG, do you think dismissing something that leaves footprints, stacks up dead trees and makes sounds as "mythical" might just be getting in the way of confirmation? (I've deliberately tossed out the sighting reports, because I will agree: Mythical animals get "seen", all the time. I will spare you my position as to why BF sighting reports have the congruency of actual wildlife sightings) So, there is this physical evidence. It is no less physical, or real, because we lack the confirmation of what is causing it. The only point that matters is we have no other satisfactory explanation. No, really, there isn't one. I came to this Forum years ago thinking somebody surely had the theory that would explain all this to me and I could move on to other things. A Unified Theory of Sasquatch Debunking, if you will. Instead, what I saw on display was the opponents' a la carte menu of hackneyed and tread worn half-baked responses that had no one-size-fits-all applicability that you'd think could be applied if this were such an easy problem to solve. I've wracked my brain trying to devise explanations of my own that fit my understanding of the accepted model for the natural world and predicted human nature, and I just have come up empty handed. I'm certainly not the first to arrive at this point either, by a wide margin. Well, so in the end many people here did have a plausible explanation for it, and they were all proponents. The rejoinder to their theory continues to be, only: MYTHICAL!!! That is exactly what I mean by the perniciousness of the false equivalency. It is not serving us well, at all.

Man! That recording is the kind that make a "fellers" mouth and eyes open wide in the woods at night. Coyotes,BF knocking, vocalizing, even sounds like two talking to each other and an owl adding its two cents worth. GOOD recording! About every thing the Boogers do is "cyclical activity", glad you mentioned it. Give's me a chance to mention a few related things about the rascals. Here and in the other states in which I have spent a lot of time, I've found that: 1) When fish are spawning in early spring, especially in large lakes, they hang around the creek and river bottoms that feed the lakes and feed on the spawning fish coming upstream. This, like most of their foraging schedule, generally takes place between midnight and early dawn. They DO love fish! 2) When they are foraging around rural residences or remote camp sites, there "witching hour" seem to be 2:00 AM! It is amazing how often those things have approached my camp at that time of morning, and even more amazing how often others have reported encounters near that time of night. I really think that they deliberately wait until they hear people snoring in tents or campers, and maybe even homes as well, before they slip in to snoop around. The first big male that I saw, which walked up to the back of my pickup/camper shell, came in mumbling to himself at exactly 2:00 AM while I was snoring. When I stopped, he went into the stealth mode. 3) During really hot and dry whether, the family groups will ALWAYS be within 5 to 10 minutes walking distance of fresh water, and will make sure no human is going to come anywhere close to that spring while the family is using it. Been there, done that, but won't ever try it again. 4) When they bed up high during the spring and summer, unless they use an area of thick evergreen vegetation and have a good spring nearby, they will move down into the rough and remote ravines and hollows when the leaves fall. They likely don't care for the openness and visibility of the mountainsides. 5) In areas with limestone layers, some of the animals are known to bed in limestone caves. Additionally, evidence has shown (and witnesses have observed) that they sometime bed in old coal drift mines. (Because some these horizontal mining shafts still have the required vertical vents to the surface - western Arkansas and northern Alabama being examples - these animals have been known to bed in those shafts because of the coolness and air currents within them.) 6) I suppose every one who has tried to learn a little more about these critters by doing field work and speaking to rural area residents about "strange animal sounds" they may have heard. I'll bet that most of the residents who responded said something like, "Well yeah, I've heard panther's (mountain lion, cougar, catamount, etc) screaming loud and long, just like a women that was being killed or in great pain or distress." I don't know about other field workers, but I never try to tell them that cougar don't make those kinds of sounds, but I do try to get the time and location in which the sounds were heard. Usually the sound were heard in the early spring (when the new leaves are on the trees) or just after the first killing frost in late fall or early winter. In several locations in the Ouachita and Ozark mountains, especially in areas of development along the fringes of the NFs or the NR, but close to major rivers, there have been many reports from owners of newly built cabins who heard screams like those from women in pain or distress. When contacted, two of the owners of two new cabins stated they had no idea what made the sounds, and even more perplexed that within hours the roofs and walls of their cabins were pelted with rocks.The events occurred within a few miles of a hollow that bears a map name of "Bigfoot Hollow". It's just a few miles from that hollow to one bears county signage of "Cat Holler Hollow". All over the south and southeast, there are numerous creeks, hollows, ridges, hills and mountains that old timers gave the name of "Panther" this or that. Some, no doubt, were so named because residents had killed or seen "panthers" at the locations. There is also no doubt that some locations were so named because the older residents routinely heard the sounds of a woman screaming in great pain or distress coming from some of those areas. The fact is that when folks hear a long, loud scream that is human-like in all respects from the deep woods at night, and they can't really identify it, they will likely attribute to a some known animals they know exists. "Panthers" no doubt have got a lot of bum raps.