Panic Attack In The Woods Is Not Evidence Of Bf Presence

[Guest]

Seriously Jayjeti, did you even look? No because you would rather ignore science and logic as the simplest answer to justify the unjustifiable.

"One of the pioneers in infrasonic research was French scientist Vladimir .... called "Ghosts in the Machine" for the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research." There are plenty of other studies, look them up yourself, not going to be one of those guys that will post links to prove a simple point that you can figure out on your own with little effort. Scientific process has to be followed if you expect anyone to take the BF phenomenon seriously. So you can disagree with my conclusion all you want the FACT is, there are SCIENTIFIC studies that prove my conclusion exactly, which is this. \/ \/ \/

"There are perfectly logical, sound, scientific reasons in nature and not that I can cause infrasound which can cause panic, fear and dread and other emotions in some people."

Does it really make any sense to ignore every possible reasonable explanation and arrive at a conclusion that a yet undiscovered animal is using a "power" to its benefit that there is not one tiny shred of evidence to indicate anything to the contrary?

Divergent1, DWA

If the image of BF house shopping doesn't make you crack a smile then nothing will, believe me I don't need to lighten up, I'm having fun, words on a page is a poor example of potrayal of emotion. I also didn't state anyone was wrong only that they were ignoring the obvious...logical thought process does not equal Skeptic.

[jayjeti]

Seriously Jayjeti, did you even look? No because you would rather ignore science and logic as the simplest answer to justify the unjustifiable.

 

 

Even look at what?  I haven't ever answered anything you wrote or had any other exchange with you.  And if this is how you begin a dialog I'm not interested in whatever you say you won't bother to post a link to. 

[Guest Divergent1]

Divergent1, DWA

If the image of BF house shopping doesn't make you crack a smile then nothing will, believe me I don't need to lighten up, I'm having fun, words on a page is a poor example of potrayal of emotion. I also didn't state anyone was wrong only that they were ignoring the obvious...logical thought process does not equal Skeptic.

Logically speaking, without a type specimen, all conjecture is equally valid regardless of your stance.

[Guest]

Sorry Jayjeti, that was meant for Explorer, sent you pm when I caught my error right after posting.

Divergent1, touché.

[Guest]

Without going through all four pages of thread, it is true that humans, like many creatures, are capable of "knowing" when they are being watched.  This is because of a variety of subconscious cues that we process without realizing it from moment to moment.  It's a survival trait.

 

Does that make every freak out in the woods due to BF?  No.  But it's worth considering and noting nontheless.

[Explorer]

JayJeti,

 

The Altmann paper does provide sources for alleged claims from infrasound, but he dismisses them as not reliable.

You are correct that I did not mention this, but I was expecting people to read the full report and understand why Altmann was rejecting previous published claims as not scientifically reliable.

 

Some of the reasons he gives are:

(On Pages 5-6, he mentions inconsistencies and un-reliability of previous claims)
The literature rarely gives sources. Note that there are some inconsistencies, as, e.g., whether high or very low frequencies are used in "acoustic bullets" (refs. 18-21). In some cases one cannot avoid the impression that the respective author's misunderstood something or mixed things up, as, e.g., with the plasma created by an acoustic bullet or with equalling non-diffracting with non-penetrating (ref. 18). to form a beat frequency of, e.g., 2 Hz, said to be intolerable. The Ministry of Defence denied the existence of the device. A later book assumed that it had never been fully developed. At the same period, there was a series of articles stating marked effects of infrasound, such as dizziness and nausea at levels between 95 and 115 dB, which other experimenters, however, could not confirm.

(On Page 7, he mentions that many of these claims are incorrect)

It should be noted that several of the claims about effects do not stand critical appraisal, in particular for the infrasound and audio regions. The same holds for a range of kilometers. It seems that SARA have taken earlier allegations at face value without checking their correctness.

(On page 15, he states that most of previous published studies are anecdotal and could not be confirmed).

In the 1960s and 1970s there was a wave of articles ascribing exaggerated effects to infrasound, not only in the general press. Much of this was anecdotal. In some cases, effects observed in one laboratory could not be reproduced in another, e.g., concerning the evocation of nystagmus (involuntary eye movements) by infrasound.

(On Page 16, he states that previous experiments have not followed proper controls and thus the conclusions are not reliable)

One reason may be production of harmonics in test systems. Harmonics need to be controlled carefully, otherwise—because the sensitivity increases rapidly with frequency—they could influence the results.

(On page 54, he again complains about the un-reliability of previous claims)

Thus, it seems that these alleged effects are based more on hearsay than on scientific evidence. It cannot be excluded that at higher sound levels in specific frequency ranges vomiting, uncontrolled defecation, or heart problems will occur, but the evidence for them is scant at best, and achieving such sound levels at some distance is extremely difficult anyway.

(On page 55, he arrives at his conclusion on what can be reliably concluded on infrasound effects on humans)

Contrary to several articles in the defense press, high-power infrasound has no profound effect on humans. The pain threshold is higher than in the audio range, and there is no hard evidence for the alleged effects on inner organs, on the vestibular system, for vomiting, or uncontrolled defecation up to levels of 170 dB or more.

While I think this is one of the best papers summarizing the effects of sound on humans that I have read, I concede that that there might other better papers (or books) out there since 1999 (but I have not found).

 

JasonW,

I am surprised that you are attributing to me the claim that infrasound from BF is the main cause for people who panic in the woods (when no BF is seen). If you have read my posts, you would see the opposite. Where we disagree is in the attribution on infrasound from natural causes on panic in the woods.

I read the article you referred to “The Ghost in the Machine†by Vic Tandy and Tony Lawrence in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (see link below).

http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/HumA2.html

The article attributes the feelings of depression/unease by the workers to a low frequency (19 Hz) standing wave. Did not read anything about workers running away from the site scared to death. This happened in an enclosed location and led to resonance problems. In an outdoor situation like a forest, you don’t have walls to bounce a low frequency wave upon itself and create a more powerful standing wave. Going from this specific case to attributing all panic attacks in the woods to infrasound might be a stretch.

You mentioned to look into the work of French scientist Vladimir Gavreau, but if you dig deeper you find that his findings were flawed.
There is a paper published in the Journal of Canadian Acoustical Association titled “Infrasound from Wind Turbines – Fact, fiction or Deception†by Geoff Leventhall (2006) (see link below) that goes over some of these flaws.

http://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/1794

 

The article does not put much merit on the work from Vladimir Gavreau (quote from page 3)
The American work did not attract media attention, but in the late 1960’s two papers from France led to much publicity and speculative exaggerations. (Gavreau, Condat et al. 1966; Gavreau 1968). Although both papers carry “infrasound†in their titles, there is very little on frequencies below 20Hz (Leventhall 2005). Some rather casual and irresponsible experiments of the “try it and see†variety were carried out on exposure of the laboratory staff, primarily using high intensity pneumatic sources at frequencies mainly at the upper end of the low frequency range, or above. For example, 196Hz at 160dB sound level and 340Hz at 155dB sound level. A high intensity whistle at 2600Hz is also included in the “infrasound†papers.


BTW, I am not saying that infrasound does not cause effects on humans. I think the literature does suggest that there are effects. The question is if these natural infrasound effects found in the woods are sufficient to cause a man to panic and run for his life.

 

I agree that quoting papers and links back and forth is not going to resolve this mystery. Hopefully, there is enough material posted by all (thanks JayJeti and others) that readers can make their own mind.

 

I personally do not have the answers nor am I pushing a view that dismisses infrasound effects.


 

Edited November 2, 2014 by Explorer

[norseman]

We as a species are a product of the Pleistocene epoch. This time frame of Earth's history had some of the largest mammals (megafauna) ever........Cave Bear, Lions, Dire Wolves, Short Faced Bears and other Homo species that probably practiced cannibalism.

 

So while most of us live in a urban setting of concrete and steel, our brain is still very much wired for survival in the Pleistocene.

 

The odds that a Cougar or a Bear or Bigfoot that matter is stalking you in dark timber is very very slim? Your mind doesn't like it. Dark timber allows predators to stalk close to you. We rely heavily on our sight, dark timber negates that defense we possess. So every snap in the forest is interpreted by us as the boogie man, and for good reason.

 

We may have had our senses dulled with the modern age, but the Industrial revolution is a couple hundred years old at best, we as a species are over one hundred thousand years old.

 

Our Pleistocene is still there, just scratch the surface.

[Guest UPs]

I have never had a panic attack in my life, but I have sensed danger when in the woods and I always listen to my gut instincts and maybe they have worked because I am still living. These instincts that we have are important to our survival and certainly not evidence of bf, but regardless of what sets your alarms off, its best to not ignore it (at least for me). Panic on the other hand can be dangerous in that it can compromise your ability to make decisions. I bet panic is one of the leading causes of folks getting lost in the wilderness.

[Guest]

Man, I'm battin' zero. Sorry Explorer, in that case than I will agree with you on both points, although natural sounds are possible causes I will agree they may not cause a man to run for his life, obviously there isn't enough research to suggest otherwise.

Which brings me full circle to my original post on this thread. Attributing infrasound to a BF in the woods, Squatchy area or not, is a big stretch. Anyone who disagrees, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. With that established I bid farewell to this thread.

[Cotter]

Jason, I agree with your statement in part, my issue was to have BF NOT on the table (in certain circumstances) is doing a disservice to finding the true cause of the infrasound.

[Guest DWA]

Right.  A real nonstarter in this discussion is "since BF is by far the least likely cause..."

 

Wrong.

 

As the evidence has not been addressed, we have no idea, actually.  BF might from a strictly statistical POV be the most likely cause.

[hiflier]

Hello All,
 

^^^Pretty much that.  If you aren't actively playing with this, rather than coming here to Lecture Wrong People, how are you getting any entertainment out of it (other than the kind that, well, makes some of us kind of wonder)...?

^^^ Oh yes, and don't ever forget the, well, you know, ever present "us" verses "you" condescension element. Lotta mice in pockets around here, eh?

Edited November 4, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

I did not read this entire thread so excuse me if I've drifted away from the gist of the conversation as it has progressed.

I think it is a pretty big reach to add to "panic attack in the woods" the phrase "panic attack in the woods caused by lurking Bigfoot". I don't see a demonstrable link in any of the reports that I would want to hang my hat on and make that link, but that is just me.

"The Woods" can be a lot of things to different people. It could be the 30 ft thick treed and brushy strip of land that borders a park in the suburbs all the way up to the Desolation Wilderness.

It is perspective.

You get someone out-of-shape trying to hike into the high country and starting to suffer from a lack of Oxygen and all sorts of things can happen. If you research Search and Rescue reports I'd wager you would find lots of people who are the subject of said searches suffer some sort of panic when they first discover they are lost or are otherwise unable to return to "civilization".

Lots of personal experiences in the wild can cause panic. The first time someone not familiar with the "country" hears a mountain lion scream comes to mind, as does the first time someone hears a danged Peacock hollering at night. (They sound a lot like a person screaming "help me")

I have no problem with a witness reporting a close encounter with a 7-8 ft. tall critter in the woods stating they felt a sense of panic. Flight or fight comes in to play, and a whole lot of folks are gonna be in the flight mode, but are struggling to get their feets a-going. I think continuing to research and talk about amongst the investigative community this is fine, but I don't think it is worth a lot of effort in the field unless you have an encounter report where it is a focal point of the event.

A witness who reports a visual encounter and admits to a sense of panic is probably being honest, especially if they offer the admission without prompting.

I think there is enough difficulty involved in getting good reports from people and adding to all of the validity probabilities, (purifying the database, as it were) without adding what amounts to a telepathic ability to an creature we are still struggling to get, "mainstream science" to admit exists at all.

Interesting topic for sure.

[MIB]

Northfork -

 

Shouldn't they report the truth, report whatever they experienced, in exactly as much detail of whatever sort they remember?   Is there nowhere here for a person to advocate for truth?  Are we only allowed to advocate for respectability?

 

There's a catch-22, self fulfilling prophecy deal going on here.   You would be surprised and maybe appalled to know how many of the raw reports going to different BF research organizations contain content that is not published because that content doesn't fit the organization's idea of what will be respected.   That same lack of such content being published increases the (mis) perception of how unusual it is.   Circular. 

 

I don't know what to make of it.  IMHO if the report is bogus if the report contained some woo aspect, the report is equally bogus after being "sanitized."   We're all crazy anyway, might as well be only crazy rather than crazy and liars, too.

 

IMHO tell it as it is and let the chips fall where they may. 

 

MIB

[jayjeti]

 

 You would be surprised and maybe appalled to know how many of the raw reports going to different BF research organizations contain content that is not published because that content doesn't fit the organization's idea of what will be respected.   That same lack of such content being published increases the (mis) perception of how unusual it is.   Circular. 

 

 

Sadly, the same thing sometimes happens in science if the results are not what is expected.  Perhaps even in the climate change debate.  I believe there have been a number of bigfoot bone finds over the years that invariably get labeled Native American because there is no other point of reference to conform it to.  Ray Crowe compiled a number of large skeletal finds and skulls that don't fit modern man.  Here is one that he listed that underscores how people discount things that don't fit their preconceptions.

 

"1965: Minarets Region of the Sierra Nevada, California. A partial Bigfoot skull (calvarium) was found by a physician. A pathologist said it was not human. It was sent to UCLA, where anthropologists said it was an old Indian skull, since the only ancient hominids residing in the Sierras were Indians, so it must be an Indian. They did say that it had odd features such as a nuchal crest. It’s presently lost in storage. Reported by the BFRO."

http://bigfootology.com/?p=406