Guest vilnoori Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Just mentioning in passing that my impression of the final whistle in the Sierra growl was actually a whine, made by vocal cords not by pursed whistling lips. That means the same vocal apparatus produced those incredibly low sounds and the high pitches as well. Not impossible, actually, given their huge bodies. Consider that some of the best male singers have an incredible falsetto range as well as an amazingly deep voice as well. Ivan Rebroff comes to mind. I'm sure a sasquatch singer could outdo him by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 One question that comes to mind is why does BF make all of these sounds? Low sounds travel farther than high pitched ones so does BF use these sounds to locate other BFs? Does it do so while hunting so other BFs can coordinate their movements when stalking a deer yet remain undetected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Prehistoric Fisherman Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Spurfoot has a number of ideas associated together that I think would benefit from an effort at unpacking into separate topics or points. I'll do this for brevity if for nothing else, especially as some topics get pretty detailed, I'm going to try to tackle the points one-by-one. I'll probably address some of the points others have made after that. We'll start with: (Topic A) > My interpretation of that observation is that the so called infrasound sometimes mentioned associated with BF [...] < Regarding point (A), infrasound isn't associated with BF per se, but rather psychological effects -- from the feeling of being watched to that of imminent and absolute physical danger, without first observing a bigfoot -- are what is associated with the phenomena. I'm not aware that the "fluttering" effect is typically described in association with the this, if so it seems to be much less commonly mentioned in witness reports. So this (admitedly possibly pressure related) fluttering phenomena isn't necessarily diagnostic of infrasound in the bigfoot-infrasound theory. Rather infrasound's association -- even by Skeptics and scientists -- with psychological effects which generate feelings from fear to awe -- are the determative similarity that leads to this hypothesis. In short, its a mystery why people have these feelings and infrasound seems to be a demonstrated possible cause in other situations, leading to the unproven hypothesis that BF generates infrasound. I wasn't able to find in my effort to research the subject of ultrasound any evidence that it generates similar psychological phenomena. In general ultrasound tends to cause more mechanical and lasting effects: from pain, to potential hearing loss, to organ damage. To look at it from the opposite perspective: if ultrasound is indeed the explanation of the fluttering effect, it would seem to still leave unexplained the psychological phenomena associated with bigfoot encounters... and suspected near-bigfoot encounters. The primary advantage of the "infrasound hypothesis" is that it explains away some phenomena of "moderate strangeness" (and, I believe, some of what would be called "high strangeness", but thats a more complicated discussion) that are allegedly -- but doggedly -- associated with bigfoot by only using two demonstrated scientific discoveries: that known animals can produce significant infrasound, and infrasound seems to produce particular neurological and sensory phenomena in humans. I'm not in the best health at the moment, so I'll probably be popping in every one or two days at best. In the mean time, I look forward to comments and questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Doesn't matter the production mechanisms of sound frequency. The reality is that people are recording commonalities in frequencies across research areas. Again: see Mononga Hela on blogspot.com for further clues. When historical accounts (as far back as Fred Beck) of strange bass noises and other close observers note specifics to the low frequency, very low frequency or even infrasound is suspected, I think we need to take note and listen; whether every sighting involves such phenonomena or not. Edited March 20, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 bipedalist,& anyone else into recording these things.. a few times now, ive heard of recordings being done & later , during playback the researcher hears sounds in the recording that they didnt hear in person / real time while the recording was being made. is that sort of thing common? & if so do you think it could be the results of low frequency as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't know how common that phenomenon is but I have been awakened to hear material (that was also being recorded) live and have slept through material that was quite "wild" that I would not have been able to review without a program of continuous sound recording. In many cases, Samurai chatter was heard or recorded (sometimes live and witnessed, other times recorded while sleeping and other times still (early on) ... heard but prior to a program of audio recording. Can't speak for others but I would imagine there is some combination of experiences such as these for alot of researchers. In my instance, I missed some powerful stuff by not having a program of set recording from the word "jump", including multiple interaction Samurai and some powerful tree shaking and crashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 slicktrick, some, actually most, tape recorders use an ultrasonic "bias" injected into the recording so linearize the non-linear properties of the magnetic medium on which the recording is being made. If it should happen that there is also a real external, i.e. from microphone, signal that is ultrasonic it would be possible for it to interact with the internally generated "bias" signal. It follows from this, that a playback of the recording could comprise all kinds of strange artififacts that are not real. Prehistoric: keep on keeping on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Acoustic biologist Katy Payne explains how she discovered that elephants communicate with infrasound. Listen to the presentation, really eye opening about much the elephants rely on infrasound for their communication. Notice how she describes the infrasound as a "fluttering" in the air when she first heard it. http://blog.onbeing....hant-infrasound Is there any equipment requirements for being able to record then play back at 10x speed as she is doing? Any audiophiles here that might point me in the right direction for doing some sound recording? Edited March 20, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Here's an interesting paper on "Acoustic Trauma: The Bio-effects of Sound http://www.schizophonia.com/installation/trauma/trauma_thesis/index.htm. Maybe the sense of 'dread' witnesses report is caused by infrasound the BF generates. Has anyone recorded sounds as low as 7Hz in BF territory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 slicktrick, some, actually most, tape recorders use an ultrasonic "bias" injected into the recording so linearize the non-linear properties of the magnetic medium on which the recording is being made. If it should happen that there is also a real external, i.e. from microphone, signal that is ultrasonic it would be possible for it to interact with the internally generated "bias" signal. It follows from this, that a playback of the recording could comprise all kinds of strange artififacts that are not real. Prehistoric: keep on keeping on. It is yet another sign I'm getting old that I forgot about the newer digital technology recorders. Digital tape recorders have no need of nor use a "bias" signal. They do have their own limitations however such as so called "aliasing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Are the modern digital audio recorders capable of recording frequencies below 20 Hertz? If not, how would a person detect infrasound in the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 21, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 21, 2012 There are few recorders that will go below the 20HZ cutoff but as I remember there were a few that went down to 15 or 17HZ..... you'd have to do a product search for specifications as it's been a long time since I've been comparing devices...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 My current method for detecting infrasound requires me to be at the scene real time, and is somewhat unsettling. I theorize that infrasound isn't used often by bigfoot and therefore wouldn't be a good thing to key on for locating bigfoot. If recordable, it could prove valuable to obtain audio samples of it from a previously identified hotspot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Infrasound can be recorded. Look at the video presentation of how they recorded elephants with an array of recording devices in conjunction with video. They sped up the recording 10x (2.5 octaves) in order to hear infrasound. Most elephant communication seemed to be down in this area of frequencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) A digital recorder can go all the way down to zero hertz, i.e. DC. The limitations of commercially available recorders are only because they have a high pass filter on them so that they only record stuff higher than 16 Hz or so. That filter can be disabled or modified. I suggest modifying it so it passes stuff above 3 Hz or so. The only real low frequency limitation in the total recording process is the sensor, that is the "microphone" , attached to the recorder. A low frequency microphone must be physically large, just as a low frequency emitter must also be large. Think ultra large "woofer" from your hi-fi. I have sometimes thought of simply using a large plate of styrofoam with styrofoam ribs glued on for stiffness. Balsa wood would also work. The movement of the plate must then be coupled with a movement transducer that is then attached to the digital recorder. Obviously, low frequency capability means unavoidable sensitivity to wind. Office Depot and similar stores sell 1/4 inch styrofoam for science fair displays. The movement transducer could be a LVDT. You can easily build one yourself. Edited March 21, 2012 by spurfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts