The Heterodyne Hypothesis

[Doc Holliday]

so instead of recording BF, ( or perhaps better while doing so) would it be possible to transmit your own infrasound electronically?

if BF use it, then in theory they should be able to detect it also.

maybe it could draw a reaction from them, possibly leading to better quality recordings or perhaps pull them in closer for a good video?

[Guest BFSleuth]

So then the question becomes what infrasound recording would you broadcast? Just a single tone? I'm not sure what this would mean to them.

The question also comes to mind what all the yelling and tree wacking is communicating. I recall one of the forum members having a frightening night after apparently calling in a BF that seemed to take exception to his tree knocking.

Be careful what you broadcast.

[Guest sosha]

Hi everyone. Have not been on here for a while...I used to more on the old forums..but recently got the big "C"...so am dealing with that. But I wanted to say I work at an exotic animal sanctuary and we have elephants and I actually worked with Katy Payne years ago when she was researching this very thing with our elephants. We discussed this phenomena at length but this was actually far before I had taken up an interest in Bigfoot. I live on the property where I work and next door is a tiger...fairly close to the house I live in. At night he will roar...yep tigers roar...but it is a very different roar from a lion. Anyway...this tiger used to be in an enclosure farther away from this house...when they moved him next door....for many nights I would wake up in the middle of the night and think my phone was buzzing...(I keep my cell phone on silent at night for obvious reasons..lol) but the sound was very low and more like I felt it. I finally would get up and listen...sometimes he would hear me in the house and shuddup...finally I heard him and recorded him (I'll post the recording later when I find it..lol) and it was very deep...and loud when I opened the door. I think he wakes me up quite often but then I go back to sleep...heh. Anyway here is another article I found on Infrasound...some of it is downright scary what it can be used for!

http://lowertheboom.org/trice/infrasound.htm

[Guest spurfoot]

so instead of recording BF, ( or perhaps better while doing so) would it be possible to transmit your own infrasound electronically?

Yes. You can transmit electronically. Even easier, just transmit mechanically. Attach a motor/vibrator to the middle of a diaphram/plate as described above. Sit back while BF comes investigating. That could be frightening.

I suggest that someone who has experienced the buzz from BF do this while adjusting the frequency of emission to match what they remember. Do a good deed and report here on this thread what frequency what you thought matched.

Edited March 21, 2012 by spurfoot

[Guest BFSleuth]

Any thoughts that the current outbreak of booming sounds in Clintonville, WI might be infrasound? Seismometers aren't picking it up and they've ruled out any gas leaks or other issues.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/mysterious-booms-trembles-plague-wisconsin-town-baffle-scientists-060707562--abc-news.html

So far I can't find any actual recordings of the sounds. Witnesses describe it as shock waves like an explosion. Dogs are going nuts with fear. Residents are leaving because of it.

Regarding the idea of transmitting infrasound to attract BF, I'm curious what the results might be. I'm not sure I would want to try it. The easiest way would be to find a friend with a boom box car that has a "burp" button.

[Doc Holliday]

if infrasound is broadcasted for BF, i suggest trying a trick from the predator hunters bag....

with the wind in your favor, set up your transmitter remotely,maybe in a clearing ,& operated from a distance on a length of wire or with a wireless caller like a "foxpro" or johnny stewart set up.

have your recorders/cameras set up around the source of your transmission waiting for any approaching & possibly ticked BF that may or may not show up while you hope to observe from a safe distance.

but just for fun, wear one of these,just in case...... just kidding about the shirt ,btw

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Only a small number of the recordings I have listened to portray sounds from an animal that is able to produce multiple tones at the same time. Most of the whoop calls do not contain any distinctive under or overtone, but as I said, there are a handful of recordings where the animal is making other types of sounds, and they are very intricate.

No doubt their upright posture increases their vocal abilities and range, as the positioning of the vocal area, and the ability to draw in large volumes of air give them a clear advantage in this area. I personally think that your hypothesis is extremely plausible, moreso than infrasound emissions.

Since many of us would agree that these animals can produce a variety of tones, it would make more sense to hypothesize that this is the method they utilize for producing sounds inaudible to the majority of humans, if in fact the phenomenon is actually occurring, and people really are getting blasted or zapped by something emanating from a bigfoot.

[bipedalist]

Anyway here is another article I found on Infrasound...some of it is downright scary what it can be used for!

http://lowertheboom..../infrasound.htm

Nice link, with some stuff I was familiar with but some new stuff too. Infrasound can be dangerous to your health..... it is not something I would seek out for a lifelong friend.

.....Only a small number of the recordings I have listened to portray sounds from an animal that is able to produce multiple tones at the same time. Most of the whoop calls do not contain any distinctive under or overtone, but as I said, there are a handful of recordings where the animal is making other types of sounds, and they are very intricate.

Since many of us would agree that these animals can produce a variety of tones, it would make more sense to hypothesize that this is the method they utilize for producing sounds inaudible to the majority of humans, if in fact the phenomenon is actually occurring, and people really are getting blasted or zapped by something emanating from a bigfoot.

I think we give short-shrift to the amazing vocal characteristics of many common woodland creatures, the common red fox can make a head-spinning number of calls (yet usually is heard only making a few); the barred owl, though common can also make a dizzying cacophony of differing calls depending on need (and many researchers are unfamiliar with several of these..... even if they are being imitated by a BF, lol) and finally the intricacy of BF calls has been well-documented in regard to harmonics (see sasquatch bioacoustic Mononga Hela for some of this information). I find it is the speed with which they can move from Samurai, to animalistic sounds to more physical noises like clanging and ringing type sounds that is quite the bomb.

I think they are capable of all this and the infrasonic like arsenal. Just too many witnesses with similar symptoms of incapacitation to ignore..... they all can't be confabulating or lying. I have never experienced intense zapping, only milder forms of the tingling and thumping/vibratory noises that are focal (NOT from HVAC) and seem to be under exquisite control (just my observations and my opinion based on them).

if infrasound is broadcasted for BF, i suggest trying a trick from the predator hunters bag....

with the wind in your favor, set up your transmitter remotely,maybe in a clearing ,& operated from a distance on a length of wire or with a wireless caller like a "foxpro" or johnny stewart set up.

have your recorders/cameras set up around the source of your transmission waiting for any approaching & possibly ticked BF that may or may not show up while you hope to observe from a safe distance.

but just for fun, wear one of these,just in case...... just kidding about the shirt ,btw

This is a good idea (especially the T shirt, lol..... where can you get them?)...... one thing though, you could do the same thing with predator calls but if you bring in the mountain lion I think maybe that the T-shirt could be an attractant in that case (especially if you are playing the "Here kitty kitty" predator call).

Edited March 22, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest BFSleuth]

I don't have the speakers to be able to hear this very well. Anyone else try this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpGcvmlohk

[bipedalist]

Gotta laugh....

I've got a resident 'Taos Hum' in this area that has followed me from a long hike to overwhelming this sound clip over top of the earphones... while I hear nothing of the infrasound from the youtube recording........

[Guest Prehistoric Fisherman]

Apologies for length, I'm addressing multiple points. First getting back to Spurfoot's post

[What I call Topic B] > [...] might not really be infrasound, but, is instead the heterodyning of two closely spaced ultrasonic pitches. Thus "syncopated and rhythmic rather than steady/constant" . [...] The sasquatch is known to be able to emit very high pitched sounds. Emitting two of them close together in pitch and very intense at ultrasound frequencies would be a highly efficient way to create the illusion of infrasound in the ear of the hearer provided that the ear of the hearer is non-linear when ultrasonic intensity is high. <

As for the 'fluttering', we turn back to wikipedia: "Twenty Hz is considered the normal low frequency limit of human hearing. When pure sine waves are reproduced under ideal conditions and at very high volume, a human listener will be able to identify tones as low as 12 Hz. Below 10 Hz it is possible to perceive the single cycles of the sound, along with a sensation of pressure at the eardrums." To me the effects of a frequency somewhere around 10-12 Hz sounds like a fair description of the 'fluttering' phenomena.

Secondly, the scientific phenomena in question produces additional two frequencies when two original frequencies interact. Its not clear to me that these additional frequencies alone would cause a fulttering effect. At least more so than simply modulation of a single frequency (i.e, non-constant frequency, amplitude, or transmission -- to cover all bases). But one of the sub-frequencies might approach the audible range. I would like to see if anyone thinks this may be more to the point or whether I am off base.

slicktrick: > 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? <

Without more details about what is being recorded but not heard, a number of things come to mind:

1. handling noise: unintended noise due to touching and moving the microphone or attached equipment. I'm working toward having all equipment mounted on a tripod with the ability to rotate the parabolic(s) to eliminate this.

2. Microphone sensitivity. Parabolics I have used can typically pick up louder sounds of digestion when the microphone is pointed away from the source, and I've had to tell others handling the equipment that its actually there stomach growling.

3. Differences between human or individual hearing (including hearing loss) and the ability of the microphone to detect sound. Microphones and recording equipment don't respond dynamically to pressure waves the same way a human ear does. Depending upon their design, they are either more or less sensitive than any given human ear to a stimulus, and individual people have different abilities as well.

4. "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP)". This topic is beyond the scope and probably still outside of the rules of discussion here. Whatever causes the phenomena, including possible RF interference (which can occur with recording equipment under about any circumstance unless one is careful) might not be confined to so called 'haunted houses'.

BFSleuth: > 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? <

AFAIK, this should be all accomplished in software, the question is whether you want the pitch to change as well (as it normally would when changing speed) or to remain as it was. Remember, infrasound is not simply going to become audible because of changing speed, so boosting the frequency into the audible range is also necessary (which may require an additional effort than just from the default pitch change). Secondarily, even if you get the sound into the audible range, you need speakers capable of playing it. Headphones may not cut it, as I have had some lower level tree knocks go undetected until played through a subwoofer (such as some RiverRun had shared on the old board). I could see a "tick" in the waveform in the sound editor, but couldn't hear them with my headphones. Switching to speakers and turning the base all the way up made them audible and recognizable as tree knocks. AFAIK, everyone had missed them up until that point.

As to why you would want to change the speed, I suggest you watch the move "The Hunt for Red October" and pay attention to the sonar operators on "The Dallas". Just as in the movie, I have had the target more or less attempt to work into/stay-in-my (and others) "baffles" (implying a deduction about what the parabolic is used for), which is one reason I don't recommend wearing headphones in the field.

John T: > Are the modern digital audio recorders capable of recording frequencies below 20 Hertz? If not, how would a person detect infrasound in the field? <

Probably the best way would be to try to replicate the equipment scientists have used in the field, or once its known to find something even better as technology rolls on.

As to digital recorders, there are additional issues. Even if they are supposedly able to go that low all recorders (and microphones, and -- in a sense -- even possibly cables) introduce "self noise", often considerable amounts. My Marantz PMD-620 (which at the time was about the best model for low noise I could find under $500) generates considerable audible noise compared to a nearly 10 year old PC's built in (and therefore by PC standards "noisy") audio that I used for audio recording in house. *Some* of the old Sony MD recorders ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDisc ) supposedly had much "cleaner" pre-amps built in, and as such induce less additional noise onto the recording. To me they seem to be of limited usefulness, tempermental and aging equipment, that continue to bring a premium price. But people are using them in the BF field and getting results.

I've considered deploying a laptop with a quality USB sound "card"/audio interface (for a general overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_card ). This might bring the best quality yet. On other hand, every piece of equipment I bring into the field causes nothing but frustration as audio equpment and movement are two things that don't really seem to work very well together. Going from a hand-sized recorder to a decent size laptop (with enough CPU & battery power to be useful) is not something I would look forward to.

While I haven't been able to determine typical detection frequencies, possibly a geophone would be of use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophone ). Some paranormal researchers (non-BF AFAIK) are using devices they call geophones, though they usually look quite different. They can be purchased online and there are at least some pages with advice on building them from parts, for example:

http://www.ghosteyes.com/paranormal-investigation-geophone

http://www.ghosteyes.com/making-geophone

These are, among other things, being used to detect foot steps. So if one can manage to keep one's team from moving, these could be used as warning/detection devices even if they aren't in the infrasound range.

To find more one can search:

ghost geophone

slicktrick: > so instead of recording BF, ( or perhaps better while doing so) would it be possible to transmit your own infrasound electronically?

if BF use it, then in theory they should be able to detect it also.

maybe it could draw a reaction from them, possibly leading to better quality recordings or perhaps pull them in closer for a good video? paranormal geophone <

If they are using it for communication (which is a separate matter from whether they emit it at all) one still wouldn't know the language or "code" they use, so it would just be noise. I wouldn't dissuade anyone from trying, but it might not work as well as audible calls. On the other hand, it would be less typical for humans to do this, so it might interest them more either way. Of course, there are natural and man-made sources of infrasound, diesel engines are suspected of producing it for example.

[Doc Holliday]

This is a good idea (especially the T shirt, lol..... where can you get them?)...... one thing though, you could do the same thing with predator calls but if you bring in the mountain lion I think maybe that the T-shirt could be an attractant in that case (especially if you are playing the "Here kitty kitty" predator call).

bipedalist, the t shirt can be found at http://www.allposter...s_i7822672_.htm

wear the shirt, & carry a compressed air fog horn for your reply when the roar comes at you

but id be packing some thing in case the "kitty" you mention shows up for a closer look.

[Guest spurfoot]

Prehistoric fisherman: The non-linear mixing of two frequencies f1 and f2 results in two produced frequencies, f1+f2 and f1-f2. By way of example, mix 10,012 Hz with 10,000 Hz and you get 20,012 Hz and 12 Hz. The 12 Hz is the produced infrasound. You can't hear the sum frequency because it is ultrasonic.

[Guest BFSleuth]

spurfoot, I think I better understand where you are coming from. In your example, with the resulting heterodyne frequencies, these are both out of the range of most humans hearing. 12 hz is heard as "fluttering", when I searched Youtube I came up with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH0veOdVuPc

... so does this come close to the experience of fluttering?

Edited March 23, 2012 by BFSleuth

[bipedalist]

Hmmm..... to me it still sounds a tad too higher frequency than what I'd expect if the bassist is very low frequency...