A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

[SWWASAS]

I contacted a PHD at the Washington State Bear Study center and presented my infra sound data.     Asking if bears are capable if hearing infra sound.   No known North American animals use infra-sound but several African animals do.   Here is what he sent to me:

 

 

Charlie Robbins

WSU Bear Center

 

Hearing sensitivity is a fundamental determinant of a species' vulnerability to anthropogenic noise, however little is known about the hearing capacities of most conservation dependent species. When audiometric data are integrated with other aspects of species' acoustic ecology, life history, and characteristic habitat topography and soundscape, predictions can be made regarding probable vulnerability to the negative impacts of different types of anthropogenic noise. Here we used an adaptive psychoacoustic technique to measure hearing thresholds in the endangered giant panda; a species that uses acoustic communication to coordinate reproduction. Our results suggest that giant pandas have functional hearing into the ultrasonic range, with good sensitivity between 10.0 and 16.0 kHz, and best sensitivity measured at 12.5-14.0 kHz. We estimated the lower and upper limits of functional hearing as 0.10 and 70.0 kHz respectively. While these results suggest that panda hearing is similar to that of some other terrestrial carnivores, panda hearing thresholds above 14.0 kHz were significantly lower (i.e., more sensitive) than those of the polar bear, the only other bear species for which data are available. We discuss the implications of this divergence, as well as the relationship between hearing sensitivity and the spectral parameters of panda vocalizations. We suggest that these data, placed in context, can be used towards the development of a sensory-based model of noise disturbance for the species.

 

3.2. Comparison with polar bear audiogram

For the audiogram as a whole, giant panda hearing was similar to that of the polar bear (Owen and Bowles, 2011)

(V = 66.5, p = 0.65). However, we found that there was a significant difference between the species above 10 kHz

(V = 3, p = 0.04), but not in the low (V = 6, p = 0.81) and medium (V = 20, p = 0.36) frequency ranges (Fig. 3).

 

 

I find it interesting that polar bears and giant pandas hear down into the lower audio frequencies.    Apparently grizzly have not been tested but he has not verified that.   Additionally it is entirely possible that the audiometers used were developed for humans, and the tests conducted did not test the true ability of the bears to hear into the lower frequencies.   The implication of bear testing would suggest that it takes a larger animal to make or use infra-sound.   Not something your neighborhood coyote is likely to be able to do.  

 

 

[Twist]

14 minutes ago, Rockape said:

Why do I keep getting a "You are not allowed to give reputation vote (upvote) to this user"?

Now I'm limited to 5 upvotes? What the hell?

 

I think there has always been a limit to how many upvoted you can give.  I thought it was 3/day but maybe it’s 5.

[SWWASAS]

I was just informed that grizzly and black bear have not been tested for hearing.     I guess that no one is brave enough to try to get a grizzly to wear the headphones.   

[norseman]

9 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I was just informed that grizzly and black bear have not been tested for hearing.     I guess that no one is brave enough to try to get a grizzly to wear the headphones.   

 

Right?

[hiflier]

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:59 AM, hiflier said:

As it is you all look and sound rather desperate and quite frankly, a bit unhinged

 

dmaker, I didn't say you were unhinged. I said look and sound........a BIT unhinged. Looking and sounding unhinged is far from saying that you, as a person, IS unhinged. You didn't say I looked, sounded, or acted like a nutjob. You said I WAS one. Big difference. You may contest that there is no difference but there is: yours was a rule breaker; mine was not- off color, yes, but not an infraction.

[dmaker]

Hmmm:

 

You look purple. 

 

You are purple. 

 

You see a big difference, do you? The pronoun in the above is purely hypothetical and intended for demonstration purposes only. No slight intended. 

 

 

And for the record, hiflier, I was not pointing out your comment because I thought it was an infraction. I was quoting it because you said that inflammatory remark before I responded in kind. I don't care about infractions, but I don't like sitting idle while someone wags their finger at me while handing out a pass to the instigator.  

 

 

[hiflier]

SWWASAS, you bear post and follow up were excellent. I noticed that the testing was for the ultrasonic ranges and not INFRASONIC. It was interesting to see that Pandas were more sensitive to the higher sonic frequencies over polar bears. And of course you are right, the lower infrasonic frequencies do seem to come from larger mammals but I think other creatures like the big cats, though obviously smaller than elephants and whales, have been studied to emit infrasound? In conservation areas anthropogenic sources ARE a factor for closer scrutiny and makes me think of logging and fracking machinery and possible effects on wildlife.

 

I popped my canoe onto the truck today to bring home from a friend's who was storing it for the winter. On the highway it had a low roar going for itself at certain speeds and I couldn't help but wonder if it also generated inaudible (to me) infrasound. It probably did and so I was curious if it was affecting my dog who was sleeping in the truck's back seat.

[SWWASAS]

Related to my communication with WSU Bear Center.    I approached them with factual data and questions related to their area of expertise (bears).    When you go PHD shopping you have to know what area is in their area of expertise.    That even applies to Meldrum.     While his area is primate locomotion and foot physiology,   when I presented my infra-sound data, he referred me to someone that specializes in animal sounds.     A PHD will not venture far from their specialty.     So if you contact your local college biologist with regards to bigfoot, make sure he/she is not published in the evolutionary DNA of the meal worm.   That is not your guy.  

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, dmaker said:

You see a big difference, do you?

 

Everyone sees a big difference. Because there IS one. In other words you went beyond responding in kind. Let it go. It's water under the bridge.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by hiflier

[dmaker]

Hide behind semantics if you wish. It's not surprising. 

[hiflier]

6 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Related to my communication with WSU Bear Center.    I approached them with factual data and questions related to their area of expertise (bears).    When you go PHD shopping you have to know what area is in their area of expertise.    That even applies to Meldrum.     While his area is primate locomotion and foot physiology,   when I presented my infra-sound data, he referred me to someone that specializes in animal sounds.     A PHD will not venture far from their specialty.     So if you contact your local college biologist with regards to bigfoot, make sure he/she is not published in the evolutionary DNA of the meal worm.   That is not your guy.  

 

And this is right on point with narrowing down a specialty that actually has something to do with what one is presenting

 

4 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Hide behind semantics if you wish. It's not surprising. 

 

Because semantics are important, always have been. It is why they teach it in schools. Now if you don't mind I would like to comment on Norseman's link. Because it is on topic with my submitting the tooth to science

Edited June 27, 2018 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

20 minutes ago, hiflier said:

SWWASAS, you bear post and follow up were excellent. I noticed that the testing was for the ultrasonic ranges and not INFRASONIC. It was interesting to see that Pandas were more sensitive to the higher sonic frequencies over polar bears. And of course you are right, the lower infrasonic frequencies do seem to come from larger mammals but I think other creatures like the big cats, though obviously smaller than elephants and whales, have been studied to emit infrasound? In conservation areas anthropogenic sources ARE a factor for closer scrutiny and makes me think of logging and fracking machinery and possible effects on wildlife.

 

I popped my canoe onto the truck today to bring home from a friend's who was storing it for the winter. On the highway it had a low roar going for itself at certain speeds and I couldn't help but wonder if it also generated inaudible (to me) infrasound. It probably did and so I was curious if it was affecting my dog who was sleeping in the truck's back seat.

As I mentioned I suspect that human audiometry equipment was used in the testing and may not be representative of the actual hearing capability of bears.     To test if a bear can hear infra-sound you have to produce it.  Human audiometry gear cannot do that.      Gear capable of infra-sound is available but expensive and not common, mostly used in industrial situations.    I have an infra-sound device but it is designed to detect earthquakes.   I was playing with it one day and it was detecting something interesting.     A about 30 minutes later I heard distant thunder.  It had picked up the infra-sound from the thunderstorm that much before I could with my ears.    The military has arrays of detectors several places on the globe.    Those detectors can detect nuclear explosions from thousands of miles away.   The sound travels in the form if infra-sound pressure waves.     Anyway my post related to bears and infra-sound was to introduce to those who have not done it,  ways to interact with scientists and glean information that my be relevant to bigfoot.    Avoiding use of the "b" word gets you a lot further.   

Edited June 27, 2018 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

Giganto blacki teeth.

 

https://phys.org/news/2013-09-exploring-dental-enamel-thickness-giant.html

 

"With considerations of body and tooth size, the relative enamel thickness of Gigantopithecus blacki (20.41) is no longer the thickest one. This relative measurement indicates that Gigantopithecus blacki belongs to a category of "thick-enamel" primate along with modern humans, Australopithecus......"

 

So the relative tooth size is 20.41. A large first molar in a Human male is 11.9. The tooth from Santa Cruz compared to a 3/4" U.S. penny is 15.8. This is whay I thought it a good candidate to present to and target a forensic odontologist. Still waiting for a reply.

[SWWASAS]

I would call this a back door approach to interesting science.    Same applies to the bite studies of the elk bones.      Keep conjecture and the word bigfoot out of things as long as you can and let things run.   

[hiflier]

Agreed, the Elk bone studies is one of the things I have put out there. About a year ago in fact. I had contacted at least three scientists who do that kind of work: dentition marks on bones. Every one of them wanted to be kept informed if more were found! Folks, this is real stuff and it is about time we started reaching out to science instead of taking a back seat and waiting for them to come around on their own. They won't because they really do not know these things are what we have been looking at: bones, teeth marks, an old tooth that is oversized, anf body ratios. These are the very things I have been creating and will continue to create, correspondences about.

 

FYI, a new member as of a couple of weeks ago has been communication about some very interesting things regarding the light frequencies of trail cams. I will not steal any thunder here so will wait until enough posts have been accumulated for that member to perhaps start a thread on the matter.  

Edited June 27, 2018 by hiflier