Guest diana swampbooger Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) I've posted this several times before, but it's been at least six months so I will do it again. Have a listen and see if this sounds like anything you've heard the neighbor dog produce. If you don't want to listen to the whole thing, please scroll down to the section marked "8:30 to 12 minutes" and make sure you listen until the end. http://sasquatchresearchers.org/march-2012-minnesota-howls/ Great post, NL! The vocalizations vibrate the anterior portion of my head & down my front to my knees! A funny observation: ... does nothing to my spine which is different as listening to Tibetan Monks chanting... that definitely rattles my spine. AND there is no way,l, not a chance, nada that I would want to be standing(knocked over, turned to jelly) next to whatever made that sound when it's/they're sounding off!!! Edited May 28, 2015 by diana swampbooger 2A
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 I didn't feel a thing, however, Sassy's recording was a bit bizarre.
Northern Lights Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 Great post, NL! The vocalizations vibrate the anterior portion of my head & down my front to my knees! A funny observation: ... does nothing to my spine which is different as listening to Tibetan Monks chanting... that definitely rattles my spine. AND there is no way,l, not a chance, nada that I would want to be standing(knocked over, turned to jelly) next to whatever made that sound when it's/they're sounding off!!! Wow, I've never had anyone say they've had that sort of reaction to listening to these recordings before.
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 I've never heard anything that I thought was a bigfoot. However, I am used to different animal sounds, having grown up way out of town, surrounded by woods. But then again, there are no sasquatch where I live. To get into bigfoot territory one would have to drive at least an hour or two, to get into the forests that are connected. The wooded areas I grew up in are broken up by clearings and houses, and that is not really conducive to a bigfoot population in my opinion. Even the time I've spent in the woods in bigfoot territory, such as when I had my sighting, I have never heard anything strange. Although most of the time I have spent in such country has been during the daylight hours, which probably makes a difference if bigfoot are more active at night. Anyway, regarding the recordings I've heard, I think that many of them match. That does not say anything about what animal produced the sounds however. The very deep voice howl/moan that has been captured numerous times is probably the most intriguing, at least to me. This is because I can think of no animal which would produce such a sound. It is to deep for something like a coyote. I know that such sounds have been recorded in Texas, and we do not have the larger animals found up north which could potentially make strange sounds. For instance, bears and moose are non-existent here in Texas. If there are bears I have never heard of it, much less see or hear one. I've heard that moose can make sounds that might be confused with a bigfoot, but again, none of those here. My point is that a state like Texas is great for eliminating certain animals. If the same purported sasquatch sounds are heard in the PNW and Texas, and multiple recordings indicate as much, then this goes a long way to eliminating any animal not found in Texas. Not definitive of course, but definitely interesting. One thing that bugs me is that people go into the woods and call-blast, and such a recording can be heard by someone else, who has no idea that another person is producing the sounds. Same goes with tree knocking. In that past I have advocated the minimal usage of call-blasting, but at present I have changed my mind- I don't think it should be used at all, considering that as more and more people start using the technique, it just creates confusion, which makes all data suspect. Again, to answer your question, there definitely have been identical sounds recorded all over the place. If my memory serves me correctly there have even been recordings made in places like Russia that match with recordings made in the US and Canada. There could even be the same sounds from Australia, China, etc...Comparing where identical or similar sounds have been captured, and then comparing the wildlife in these places, we can establish what animals may or may not be responsible for the sounds. And I think that a detailed study along these lines will find that a known animal is not likely to be the culprit.
Guest Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Jiggy, I agree that call blasting can cause unknowing listeners to believe they are hearing a sasquatch. What I heard was near a forest road so it is definitely a possibility. For me, what I heard had to have been a sasquatch, a recording, or possibly a wolf. I have never heard a wolf and they are not "suposed" to live here. I also don't imagine a wolf could have such power in its voice. The sound echoed through the woods like thunder. I will never know for sure.
Sunflower Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 JIggy, I agree, no call blasting. The most we do is "hoooo" and very softly and whistle. That's it. They knew we were there before any noises from us were made anyway. They are not stupid but that is to say they don't make mistakes every now and then. Just be respectful of them and their families, meaning be a good neighbor. I certainly wouldn't want someone coming into my home and make noises that would seem to mock me.....
Guest Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 There are no verifiable recordings of a sasquatch. Many of the alledged recordings are misidentified animals sounds to include owls and coyotes. The others come from dubious sources. So what do you need in order to prove a sound eminates from a sasquatch? Film it making the sounds. That is it. Final answer. Until that happens (if that happens!) all we have is speculation and hoaxing. My colleagues and I only investigate sightings and footprint finds -- we don't investgate sounds reports. They are a 'red herring'. People overstate their experience as woodsman. They go camping 2-4 times per year during the summer and consider themselves to be Samuel Hearn.
bipedalist Posted May 31, 2015 BFF Patron Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) I think sounds and sound recording have their place in a research protocol when you know you have made contact. Getting a glimpse of sasquatch and getting them to sound off or speak simultaneously is still a distant dream. So why should sound recording be removed from the protocol? I know the Valenti and Andrews group with the recordings online made distant contact and got rather dramatic responses. http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/vocalizations.html http://web.kitsapsun.com/archive/2005/05-28/49583_they_re_desperately_seeking_sasq.html Their group contributed significantly to the research literature on Sasquatch. If they had taken you advice and the advice of the non-blasters we would not have that knowledge. I am not a fan of call-blasting but it beats hell out of random long-distance tree knocking unless it is tree-knocking with a purpose. These animals are smart, they can imitate syncopated and rhythmic sound sequences with ease and retain one trial improvised stimuli over long time spans without problem. To rap on a tree knowing this is definitely a waste of time unless you can't revisit the area and are just probing for a BFRO fun night or some such thing. Edited May 31, 2015 by bipedalist
bipedalist Posted May 31, 2015 BFF Patron Posted May 31, 2015 ^ Also, Sasquatch might not bellow and call out your name and speak English as clearly as they do for "Mike" SasquatchOntario but they certainly have some phonologic capacity to produce some human sounding language utterances as has been demonstrated in numerous instances.
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 If known animal sounds are recorded, analyzed, and documented, and obviously they are, then it should be easy to identify an unknown howl by using some of the software I linked above.
BigTreeWalker Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 One problem with interpreting recordings is that multiple factors have to be considered. Otherwise everything becomes subjective. Sounds will very in both loudness and timbre if you are in the open or in a forest. Ridge tops or valleys change the sound. Barometric pressure changes sounds. Sometimes things sound hollow in a fog or deadened and dampened. Especially you have to consider and be able to recognize the animals that most frequent an area. In the case of many animals you have to know and consider what they sound like in different times of the year. If it's mating season lots of animals make different or unusual sounds at that time of the year. It's said that bigfoot is a good mimic. But probabilities say that rather than bigfoot the usual or even slightly unusual sounds heard in the woods are probably the usual suspects. Unless, of course, you're in a habituation situation and know they are around. Just saying we should consider the usual before going to the unusual. There are too many variables to not do this. After saying all that I have also heard and recorded sounds I can't identify in the woods, mostly at night. But the best I can say about them is that I just don't know what it was. I didn't see what did it.
Guest Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 I think sounds and sound recording have their place in a research protocol when you know you have made contact. Made contact with what? Respectfully, unless you see what is making the sounds, you can't testify to what is making it. I have heard those recordings before, and while compelling and as you said dramatic, the UNLV conclusions were that they "could have been produced by a human male." Therefore they must be excluded as evidence of sasquatch. Stevens Pass is not remote -- and is only 3 hours from two major cities that have millions of people that relish the outdoors. Shows like "Finding Bigfoot" and "Survivorman: Bigfoot" have only added to the problems. Now everyone is out in the woods hooting, whooping and knocking on trees. The likelyhood of having another bigfoot enthusiast, whoop back in response has shot up remarkably. As far as your assertion that sasquatch "have some phonologic capacity to produce human sounding language" and that it has been demonstrated numerous times is quite stunning... I am still trying to figure out if they exist and find definitive scientific proof of that. The cart is clearly before the horse when it comes to: language, habituation, tree structures, gifting and ultrasound. Right now all of those subjects are mere speculation.
southernyahoo Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 Made contact with what? Respectfully, unless you see what is making the sounds, you can't testify to what is making it. I have heard those recordings before, and while compelling and as you said dramatic, the UNLV conclusions were that they "could have been produced by a human male." Therefore they must be excluded as evidence of sasquatch. Stevens Pass is not remote -- and is only 3 hours from two major cities that have millions of people that relish the outdoors. As far as your assertion that sasquatch "have some phonologic capacity to produce human sounding language" and that it has been demonstrated numerous times is quite stunning... I am still trying to figure out if they exist and find definitive scientific proof of that. The cart is clearly before the horse when it comes to: language, habituation, tree structures, gifting and ultrasound. Right now all of those subjects are mere speculation. If you hear a human speaking, you know it's human.The repeating evidence of phonetic ability pulls my cart in the direction of BF being a hominin if they are truly flesh and blood 24/7. The argument that you have to see it to know, doesn't really wash if one also claims to know when they hear known animals. 2
Guest Divergent1 Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 Based on my brief google look up , it looks like several universities are creating catalogs for various bird calls and other mammal sounds. It shouldn't be too hard to compare the two. As in your bite mark study, you might not know what it is but you would know what it isn't. Made contact with what? Respectfully, unless you see what is making the sounds, you can't testify to what is making it. I guess you need to take that up with the biologists and ornithologists that regularly record animal and bird sounds.
Recommended Posts