BigTreeWalker Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Hope you get something there LCB. I was wondering how you were going to find the time to review it with your work schedule. I need to get some of that audio Software that has been mentioned to speed up the process. It takes a while to listen to several nights of recordings! You mention setting up tree stands as observation points as well as trail cameras, I have never been on an expedition for evidence but I would like to soon. What would you recommend as gear to have with me as I go on these expeditions. My intent is to have an experience and accumulate evidence if I can of the encounter. What does everyone recommend? You can spend a fortune on research equipment. But I would recommend a decent camera, not just a cell phone. There are a lot of good ones out there that don't cost a fortune and also have video capability. Also carry a minimum of survival equipment with you. Your life my depend on it some day. Learn the area you intend to visit with maps, Google Earth or whatever before you even go there. Then learn the area on the ground. Learn the animals that inhabit the area. Become familiar with their tracks. Listen to the woods. Not everything you hear is bigfoot. Maybe you will win the lottery and actually see one. Although I think winning the actual lottery is probably more likely! You can add to your equipment as you decide which direction you want to take in your research. There have been several threads here in the BFF to get ideas and recommendations from. Most of all keep your eyes and ears open and enjoy yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 The software I use to review and edit my night recordings is NCH wave pad..it is not cheap...$50 or so and lacks some of the fancy stuff, but it has a toggling feature that lets you drag over the file minute by minute and that speeds it up hugely, while also not missing stuff. So I spread the file out and drag the play cursor and it lets me hear the spikes and what they are as fast as I want to drag. Like fast forward only not disturbing the pitch of the sounds, just the speed they are passing by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted July 8, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) I have two different audio visualizer programs and they are useful to review audio files for normal sounds. But I have to caution everyone that the most interesting things I have found on recordings slipped right past my initial review of the visual traces. The problem being that you get used to wave forms you recognize and look for them to listen to and ignore the rest. My infrasound recording was there but I never would have found it if I had not known where on the recording to look based on time and what I said out loud at the time. I would suggest if you have an interesting time in the field spend the time to listen to the entire recording. One of the most interesting things I recorded was something I should have heard with my ears but only the recorder picked it up. I found it listening for something else. Edited July 8, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I would have to run some of my recordings through one of those software analyzers to see if they pick up the most interesting parts I found when listening to the recordings. If you record while sleeping you don't know what interesting things happened or when without reviewing them. Sure wouldn't want to miss something good just because I didn't see it on an audio chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Apropos the OP title, this, which is damning to a lot of the "repeatable" science that bigfoot skeptics toss around without doing their reading. Read up if you want your faith in the scientific mainstream shaken badly. Promise, it'll do you a power of good. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off The scientists who have shown their work on this topic are a whole lot more reliable, it appears, than a lot of classic science. "As Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness." Aren't.They.Now. "That’s why Schooler argues that scientists need to become more rigorous about data collection before they publish. “We’re wasting too much time chasing after bad studies and underpowered experiments,†he says. The current “obsession†with replicability distracts from the real problem, which is faulty design. He notes that nobody even tries to replicate most science papers—there are simply too many. (According to Nature, a third of all studies never even get cited, let alone repeated.) " Do.Tell. "The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. " Well.I'll.Be. "Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. Verbal overshadowing might exhibit the decline effect, but it remains extensively relied upon within the field. The same holds for any number of phenomena, from the disappearing benefits of second-generation antipsychotics to the weak coupling ratio exhibited by decaying neutrons, which appears to have fallen by more than ten standard deviations between 1969 and 2001. Even the law of gravity hasn’t always been perfect at predicting real-world phenomena. (In one test, physicists measuring gravity by means of deep boreholes in the Nevada desert found a two-and-a-half-per-cent discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the actual data.) Despite these findings, second-generation antipsychotics are still widely prescribed, and our model of the neutron hasn’t changed. The law of gravity remains the same." Well.Strike.Me.Down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curious Cat Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Excellent article DWA, thank you for the link. Does not surprise me at all, unfortunately... “Palmer emphasizes that selective reporting is not the same as scientific fraud. Rather, the problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. Stephen Jay Gould referred to this as the “shoehorning†process." ^^^ I disagree with Palmer, it could and perhaps should, be considered scientific fraud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 hehheheheh, let's just remember that the author of this article might have a dog in the hunt, but yep... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Adding a bit more on this: that article might just be highlighting the groupthink that keeps the mainstream from dipping a toe in stuff like sasquatch. Maybe we are justified in considering 'going with the result that works best for you' as fraud, but we shouldn't forget that each scientist works under pressure, and a lot of that pressure isn't generated by science, but by other scientists, and by money. I'd consider the mainstream lack of attention to sasquatch, and the "subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results" [giggle] to be part and parcel of the exact same problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The author of the article is known for plagiarism and fabrication. It was said of him "leher's failure to grasp some fundamental principles of scientific thinking" in a review by the new york times. Hmmm who else does that sound like i wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) And again the mass media shows *its* failure to grasp science. Look, you can believe in whatever fairies you want to; but all this article is saying is that the Science Fairy isn't a good one to lean on when one doesn't even know what it says about stuff. All you are giving me is that passage in quotes? Point me to that review and watch me tear it up. Oh, but you aren't in this for that, are you. You just want to click heels three times and... You know why that article is the truth? Because there is nothing all of us know about people and what they do for money and approval that that article doesn't confirm. Oh, but scientists are immune and immortal. Uh-huh. Click heels three times and... That guy's grasp of science is super rock solid. Burden of proof is on anyone who says it isn't. Show cards. (Amended to add: somebody really can't see that someone Really Invested In The System is using a platitude to attempt to discredit something he knows is true?) Edited July 9, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Oh, and didn't add this: the NYT hired the author known for misconstruction and fabrication who put down Ray Wallace as the one and only bigfoot and didn't use a single one of Jeff Meldrum's efforts to set him straight. Oh yeah. Believe it if you read it in the NYT. Sheesh. Some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 For the record Don Jeffery Meldrum has never physically held or examined a Wallace Stomper. He also declared the SnowWalker video to be umm... well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKH Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Randy...good observations, but I would tend to think an animal that size drinking with its hands is not too efficient. Yes, there are witness accounts of that, but I have to think they most often would trade the safety of being able to look about for a quick and easy tank-up by just sprawling on the deck to suck up all it can as quickly as possible. I know I have opted for that method many times. If you've done it too, you know that some part of the lizard brain starts to beep and clang...."Danger! Danger! Danger!. It is quite pronounced for me. Still, on hot day you can't beat it for pure drinking pleasure. That sounds nice, where can you drink groundwater, lol? I have read reports of both methods of drinking. Here's one that is remarkable for a few reasons, and ties into my questioning of the fear of humans ideas. http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=3684 I've read or seen accounts of folks leaving them water in times of drought or in the summer. It's been hot and dry here, so lately I thought I'd try it, and have been leaving out gallon jugs. So far, no takers. Edited July 10, 2015 by JKH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKH Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) I would have to run some of my recordings through one of those software analyzers to see if they pick up the most interesting parts I found when listening to the recordings. If you record while sleeping you don't know what interesting things happened or when without reviewing them. Sure wouldn't want to miss something good just because I didn't see it on an audio chart. All my recording is done while sleeping, as I don't have the time or ability to camp out every week. It's kind of funny how some people seem to think their presence is required to record, I think otherwise. I swear by Audacity, and hear Sonic Visualizer is good, too. I use the zoom-in function to view/hear the quieter or distant sounds. It is fascinating if one has the patience for the lengthy analysis. My problem is I now have so much audio data that I need to come up with some kind of filing system. Edited July 10, 2015 by JKH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 10, 2015 SSR Team Share Posted July 10, 2015 Looking at predator habitat of similar size: General square mileage to support: Grizzly/Brown/Kodiak Bear: Female @ ~ 400+ lbs: 50-300 sq. miles Male @ ~ 700-800+ lbs: 200-500 sq. miles Siberian Tiger: Female @ 400-600 lbs, Male @ 600-800 lbs: 60-400 sq. miles The upper square mileage limits will exist in areas of difficult climate or poor food availability. Also, a female with cubs is going to require a greater range area. Included the Siberian tiger to show the similarity in range area for an animal of that size, even though one is a true carnivore vs. an omnivore (bear). So a similar range size could be used in conjecture for a BF. Does anyone have the general square mileage of the known BF areas in North America? The Olympic Peninsula on the whole is approximately 2.3m acres, with only 10 towns with over 1,000 people and 2 towns with over 10,000 people. Derek Randles in The Olympic Project has gone on record to say that he feels there are no more than 50 animals on the Peninsula, but of course that has to be taken with a pinch of salt as that number may fluctuate because we have little to no idea how, when, why and where they move. The Olympic Peninsula has averaged 5 reports per year since 1990. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts