Leaderboard

Isn't that the whole purpose of this thread? Trying to step up to the plate? Despite the cat calls? Lets get some things straight people. 1) This is a Bigfoot Forum. We discuss things pertaining to Bigfoot...yes? 2) Hiflier has the right as a tax payer to petition his government and his academia who recieves government funding to answer questions he has asked. No matter how ridiculous any person deems them to be. 3) Hiflier does not deserve to be called a “nutjob” or any other names on our forum, just because he is trying to share his findings with us, or defend himself from the caterwauling. 4) If you dont like Hiflier or what he is doing? Don't participate in his thread. Go start your own thread about “Dumb footies asking dumb questions to science” or “I got first place at the science fair in junior high, I am awesome!” Or whatever turns your crank..... 5) Please, please put scofftics on ignore if they bother you. They are trolling you! If it was up to them.....this forum would die a quick death because the Smithsonian says nothing is out there. We are just a bunch of dumb rubes....and they must continue to tell themselves this to inflate their egos. 6) Just because we do not have dead body doesnt mean we cannot analyze and pursue the evidence we do have. I personally do not hold much hope. But I think its great someone is..... Some scientists such as Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum and Mionczynski believed the PGF showed a real animal. Maybe there are others....and maybe that scares some people.

I was just informed that grizzly and black bear have not been tested for hearing. I guess that no one is brave enough to try to get a grizzly to wear the headphones.

I contacted a PHD at the Washington State Bear Study center and presented my infra sound data. Asking if bears are capable if hearing infra sound. No known North American animals use infra-sound but several African animals do. Here is what he sent to me: Charlie Robbins WSU Bear Center Hearing sensitivity is a fundamental determinant of a species' vulnerability to anthropogenic noise, however little is known about the hearing capacities of most conservation dependent species. When audiometric data are integrated with other aspects of species' acoustic ecology, life history, and characteristic habitat topography and soundscape, predictions can be made regarding probable vulnerability to the negative impacts of different types of anthropogenic noise. Here we used an adaptive psychoacoustic technique to measure hearing thresholds in the endangered giant panda; a species that uses acoustic communication to coordinate reproduction. Our results suggest that giant pandas have functional hearing into the ultrasonic range, with good sensitivity between 10.0 and 16.0 kHz, and best sensitivity measured at 12.5-14.0 kHz. We estimated the lower and upper limits of functional hearing as 0.10 and 70.0 kHz respectively. While these results suggest that panda hearing is similar to that of some other terrestrial carnivores, panda hearing thresholds above 14.0 kHz were significantly lower (i.e., more sensitive) than those of the polar bear, the only other bear species for which data are available. We discuss the implications of this divergence, as well as the relationship between hearing sensitivity and the spectral parameters of panda vocalizations. We suggest that these data, placed in context, can be used towards the development of a sensory-based model of noise disturbance for the species. 3.2. Comparison with polar bear audiogram For the audiogram as a whole, giant panda hearing was similar to that of the polar bear (Owen and Bowles, 2011) (V = 66.5, p = 0.65). However, we found that there was a significant difference between the species above 10 kHz (V = 3, p = 0.04), but not in the low (V = 6, p = 0.81) and medium (V = 20, p = 0.36) frequency ranges (Fig. 3). I find it interesting that polar bears and giant pandas hear down into the lower audio frequencies. Apparently grizzly have not been tested but he has not verified that. Additionally it is entirely possible that the audiometers used were developed for humans, and the tests conducted did not test the true ability of the bears to hear into the lower frequencies. The implication of bear testing would suggest that it takes a larger animal to make or use infra-sound. Not something your neighborhood coyote is likely to be able to do.

I half-way think it would be best if the Forum appended these disclaimers to the Rules. (At least it might somewhat render even more unnecessary the redundant comments from the trollers): 1. YES, we know to date there has been no widely accepted confirmation of a BF bone, tissue or body part. 2. YES, we know that any photographic and/or film, and/or video depiction purporting to show a BF doesn't confirm the species. 3. YES, we know some people hoax BF evidence, including tracks. 4. YES, we realize that no matter how many people report an encounter with a BF, those never will confirm the species. 5. YES, we have access to a calendar, and we know how many years have elapsed since the P/G film was made. 6. YES, we know to date there is no widely accepted analysis of a unique DNA sequence tending to confirm the species. 7. YES, we know our telling others about our own encounters will not confirm the species. 8. AND if you are not willing to let these axioms go unsaid, and you still find it necessary to repeat them at every opportunity, we will ignore you as you do not contribute anything substantive or new to the discussion.

^^ right on all counts, Thank you Norseman. And you are on point: We SHOULD be able to feel comfortable in our efforts to bring scientists to the table. But we have a responsibility to also make danged sure that what we are using to do that contain questions that are grounded in logic. It is the least we can do and it shows that we took something on our own as far as we could and so now seek experts to fill in the rest. Which at this point is exactly what we need. Or at least it is what I need.

It's okay, Rocky. It's the thought that counts. No need to upvote me. ;-) I did upvote SWAS for his infrasound posting.

Hiflier. Good stuff here the past couple pages. SSWASS. You too. Very interesting! Thank you!

Related to my communication with WSU Bear Center. I approached them with factual data and questions related to their area of expertise (bears). When you go PHD shopping you have to know what area is in their area of expertise. That even applies to Meldrum. While his area is primate locomotion and foot physiology, when I presented my infra-sound data, he referred me to someone that specializes in animal sounds. A PHD will not venture far from their specialty. So if you contact your local college biologist with regards to bigfoot, make sure he/she is not published in the evolutionary DNA of the meal worm. That is not your guy.

dmaker, I didn't say you were unhinged. I said look and sound........a BIT unhinged. Looking and sounding unhinged is far from saying that you, as a person, IS unhinged. You didn't say I looked, sounded, or acted like a nutjob. You said I WAS one. Big difference. You may contest that there is no difference but there is: yours was a rule breaker; mine was not- off color, yes, but not an infraction.

Giganto blacki teeth. https://phys.org/news/2013-09-exploring-dental-enamel-thickness-giant.html

Indeed I would, sir, which is why I am in agreement with you on hair forensics. Especially since the commission that was working on creating a more robust scientific analysis method was decommissioned as of just last year. The commission was first formed because there were indeed scientific gaps when it came to definitive hair morphology in criminal trials. In other words- it hair morphology forensics was so definitive as was claimed the commission would never have needed to be formed the first place. Since there is no Sasquatch body anywhere that we know of there are no "more positive identification methods". Can't just grab this stuff out of thin air. So what is to be done? Nothing short of getting either a body or science involved in investigating the subject will do. We have no body, but we do have scientists. What I am trying to do is get them involved enough to have them raise their own questions regarding Sasquatch. If there is another way that you can think of then, dmaker, I am honestly all ears.

I received a correspondence from a natural museum curator who, while not dismissing my presentation regarding shoulder span ratios wanted time to think things through before answering. I have corresponded to a few academics on the matter. Waiting to hear back from a couple of others but one was interested enough to understand the issue and so I sent along the stabilized version of the PGF that included some walk-away frames. I will only do that if someone shows interest in the problem of shoulder span ratios. That was just last week. Thank you for asking, Patterson-Gimlin. I sincerely hope this thread can now stay on the course it was meant to follow and some discussion regarding additional ideas for moving the BF subject further ahead can be proposed. It was on a pretty tough road there for a while.