Matt Moneymaker's whistle recording

[OkieFoot]

This is in one of the Finding Bigfoot episodes from Washington and Oregon that I came across recently. They were in two teams with one in each state. I said Oregon originally but the whistle actually happened in Washington.  

You can hear a whistle late in the video, at 8:37. Plus you can also hear it at about 7:34. The whole sequence starts about 7:07. Matt's companion does two knocks at about 7:15, with no response, and Renae says she'll do three knocks. They hear the whistle after her first knock, which she does at 7:32.

 

Start watching at about 8:30. Renae does a wood knock at 8:35-8:36, and you'll hear the whistle right after that, at 8:37-38. It's pretty clear.

Or you can start watching at about 7:07 and hear the whistle at the end of that sequence at 7:34.

 

Not surprisingly, Matt M. thinks it's a sasquatch whistle, although we don't know what made it.

Any thoughts as to what could have made the whistle?

 

 

[MIB]

I bet against that.   It's a person.   A sasquatch whistle should be a flat tone, no rise or fall.   It is really difficult for us to replicate that flat / constant pitch and generate enough volume for it to carry at the same time.   That difficulty in replicating it accurately shows clearly in this audio. 

 

IMHO ... "of course" ..

[DarkEyes]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I bet against that.   It's a person.   A sasquatch whistle should be a flat tone, no rise or fall.   It is really difficult for us to replicate that flat / constant pitch and generate enough volume for it to carry at the same time.   That difficulty in replicating it accurately shows clearly in this audio. 

 

IMHO ... "of course" ..

I feel like I could do a flat/constant pitch whistle very easily and really loud at that. What you make you think a Sasquatch would only make a flat/constant whistle?

 

I feel like a flat/constant whistle defeats the purpose of whistling. You would do it to communicate different things. Being monotone does nothing. I don’t believe any animals whistle a flat or constant tone. Please, correct me with what animal does if I’m mistaken. 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

....... A sasquatch whistle should be a flat tone, no rise or fall..........

 

Why so?

[MIB]

Why?   Can't answer that, it would be speculation.   But it is <what  they do>.     

 

It's like a rattlesnake.   You might ask yourself, whether you are familiar with them or not, whether some sound or other is a rattler, but when the real deal cuts loose somewhere around your feet, there's no wondering, you KNOW at an incredibly visceral level.     Same thing.   If it sounds kinda like a bird,  you may wonder if it's bigfoot, but it's probably a bird.  If it sounds like a squirrel, you may wonder if it's a bigfoot, but it is probably a squirrel.   If it sounds like a person, you may wonder if it's a bigfoot, but it is probably a person.     Someone might imagine they can imitate what they imagine that "flat" whistle sounds like.    They imagine wrong.    There is an absolute out of place quality to the sound, because of that flatness of tone, which will hit you in the guts.

 

I'm trying to educate, not trying to convince.    You've got the information.   

 

MIB

 

 

 

[Huntster]

10 hours ago, MIB said:

.......It's like a rattlesnake.   You might ask yourself, whether you are familiar with them or not, whether some sound or other is a rattler, but when the real deal cuts loose somewhere around your feet, there's no wondering, you KNOW at an incredibly visceral level.........

 

True. But different rattlesnakes sound different. Small snakes with a couple buttons sound different than large snakes with lots of buttons. Small snakes can sound like a buzzing, while large ones sound like a rattle.

 

Maybe I'm confused by your term "tone". 

[ShadowBorn]

14 hours ago, DarkEyes said:

What you make you think a Sasquatch would only make a flat/constant whistle?

I think that if the whistle is being used as a form of communication among themselves. Then the tone of the whistle would be what MIB is saying.  It would be the same all the time. If their tone is different at different times, when we are around as humans. Then they are using the whistle as a form to gain attention from us. So, then their whistle might not always be the same when we are around. So, then it might sound human in a way. Distraction. 

 

But how many times out in the field have we actually heard whistles by these creatures? In my lifetime, never!  JMO

[Backdoc]

Thoughts from an admitted Finding Bigfoot critic: 

 

I must start by saying shows like Finding Bigfoot to me are very damaging to the credibility of the subject of Bigfoot.  What little I have watched seem to boil down to people walking around in the woods, seeing nothing, and attributing every normal thing as a 'Squatch' out there.

 

Now I do hear this whistle on this video offered up and I don't know what it is.   I do know there are 8.5 billion people on the planet, and they happen to have the ability to whistle.   For me it's more likely if anything on 2 legs made a whistle noise then it is probably something like that vs a shy animal who makes a point not to be seen by people.    Let me say that again.  Something trying to avoid people.  

 

At one point I am told how Bigfoot likes to throw rocks as a warning when people are near it (as if anyone has any idea this is so).  Then, I am told any Bigfoot likes to throw rocks unless they don't throw rocks and whistle instead.  Then they communicate by hitting trees with logs unless it's more convenient to say they whistle instead.  

 

TV Shows devoted to film footage, tracks, suit recreations, the PGF, statistical analysis, and so on have credibility.    We see this kind of adult conversation by people like Dr. Jeff, Munns, and so on.  We even see this on the other side by reasonable scientists who discuss the concepts in a fair manner.  To those who think Bigfoot exists must then hold Bigfoot exists.  By that thinking they should never fear testing the concept of tracks, film or whatever as the more it's tested the more it should -on a whole- support Bigfoot's existence.

 

 

I'm surprised shows like Finding Bigfoot are no laughed off the TV.    Sorry if this upsets anyone.  It shouldn't.    They may mean well, but these shows are joke.  They couldn't even get the episode right where they had Bob Gilmin done correctly.   What an opportunity and what do they do?  Take him to the wrong spot at bluff creek and let him say a few things and that was about it.   What a lost opportunity on what such an episode of a bigfoot subject could have been.    

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Backdoc

[Marty]

My sister and I, and her boyfriend were watching FB the other night (We actually got into a real nice conversation about Bigfoots) and couldn't stop making fun of it because of what they'd say and do. It didn't age very well, despite loving the ppl and the show growing up, the show is laughable and purely entertainment. Should never be taken very seriously.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Marty

[Backdoc]

^^^

 

TV shows are obviously based on ratings. I guess if a show is done for X $$$ amount of money and it returns X plus $$$ then it is considered a sucess.   

 

Look at when History Channel or Discovery devoted a show to an update on 'evidence' Amelia Erhart and her co pilot were 'captured by the Japanese'     They offered up a well-produced show with a photo discovered said to show the aviator and Fred sitting on a dock with their backs toward us.    The only problem is this was not them and it was proved the photo could be found in a book published before the flight ever occurred.   The show was made aware of this in the news but went ahead and played the show anyway.   I guess the thinking may have been to at least present the spirt of the crash-capture theory even if the photo itself was no longer proof of it.  After all, they already invested the money.

 

 

If the goal had been to present the facts running the show was not the facts.    Further, I don't recall a disclaimer about the photo but they may have been this or some other statement.  Could have been, but I don't recall.  I just remember the news had already reported this photo could not be Amelia.    Moral of the story:  TV produced shows are about ratings / audience.

 

I have to think Finding Bigfoot doesn't really care if Bigfoot is real or not. They don't care if a snap of a twig was really a squatch or not.  

 

Shows like Monster Quest at least are shows presenting both sides and some evidence or demonstrations.   Finding Bigfoot ends up being a mini town hall of 40 people who nearly all raise their hand when asked, "How many of you have seen Bigfoot"?  Then, it's off to the woods with night vision gear.

 

Pretend the court of Public Opinion is some court of law.  Who do you really want to make the case for Bigfoot's existence?   

 

SHOW A:    Interviews with eyewitness accounts, PGF, Track evidence and analysis, wildlife experts, costume experts and so on.

 

SHOW B:    A few people show up to some town there a sighting or report might have taken place.  They talk on and on about a creature they know exists to the point they seem to know its' favorite color, food, and baseball team.   Then they go out with night vision gear in some area and find nothing.

 

In the Jury of Public opinion, what is more convincing or worthy of consideration for future study to such a jury.   It's not Show B and the very existence of people taking show B seriously undermines the great efforts of Show A?   

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Backdoc

[wiiawiwb]

5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Now I do hear this whistle on this video offered up and I don't know what it is.   I do know there are 8.5 billion people on the planet, and they happen to have the ability to whistle.   For me it's more likely if anything on 2 legs made a whistle noise then it is probably something like that vs a shy animal who makes a point not to be seen by people.   

 

All the more reason to go to places where other people almost never go. The farther you go offtrail, and the more challenging the terrain is, the more likely it will be that a human was not involved in whatever you heard or saw.

 

I've purposely done wood knocks where the sound of my knock was directed toward a swamp. No way a human would be there during the day, much less in the inky black of night, waiting to hoax someone who might come along. It worked spectacularly one night.

[JKH]

Humans' varied vocal abilities include whistles of many sorts of volumes and sound effects according to needs. I think the hairy people use sounds that we do and more due to their increased sizes/lung volume, anatomical and behavioral differences. There is enough evidence, including native history, to state without doubt that whistles are commonly used in their communications. Not to mention their mimicking skills, which is a whole other topic. I've heard them described as whistle-chirps before elsewhere.

Interesting report:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=62496

[Duckman]

22 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Thoughts from an admitted Finding Bigfoot critic: 

 

I must start by saying shows like Finding Bigfoot to me are very damaging to the credibility of the subject of Bigfoot.  What little I have watched seem to boil down to people walking around in the woods, seeing nothing, and attributing every normal thing as a 'Squatch' out there.

 

Now I do hear this whistle on this video offered up and I don't know what it is.   I do know there are 8.5 billion people on the planet, and they happen to have the ability to whistle.   For me it's more likely if anything on 2 legs made a whistle noise then it is probably something like that vs a shy animal who makes a point not to be seen by people.    Let me say that again.  Something trying to avoid people.  

 

At one point I am told how Bigfoot likes to throw rocks as a warning when people are near it (as if anyone has any idea this is so).  Then, I am told any Bigfoot likes to throw rocks unless they don't throw rocks and whistle instead.  Then they communicate by hitting trees with logs unless it's more convenient to say they whistle instead.  

 

TV Shows devoted to film footage, tracks, suit recreations, the PGF, statistical analysis, and so on have credibility.    We see this kind of adult conversation by people like Dr. Jeff, Munns, and so on.  We even see this on the other side by reasonable scientists who discuss the concepts in a fair manner.  To those who think Bigfoot exists must then hold Bigfoot exists.  By that thinking they should never fear testing the concept of tracks, film or whatever as the more it's tested the more it should -on a whole- support Bigfoot's existence.

 

 

I'm surprised shows like Finding Bigfoot are no laughed off the TV.    Sorry if this upsets anyone.  It shouldn't.    They may mean well, but these shows are joke.  They couldn't even get the episode right where they had Bob Gilmin done correctly.   What an opportunity and what do they do?  Take him to the wrong spot at bluff creek and let him say a few things and that was about it.   What a lost opportunity on what such an episode of a bigfoot subject could have been.    

 

There is no way Finding Bigfoot damaged the credibility of Bigfoot, since Bigfoot has no credibility and is already seen as a complete joke...

[Marty]

I can't argue with that since it's true, but on the same token it didn't help either. The most it did was let BF reach a wider audience. Take that for what you may.

[Twist]

2 hours ago, Marty said:

I can't argue with that since it's true, but on the same token it didn't help either. The most it did was let BF reach a wider audience. Take that for what you may.

That’s probably the single biggest thing BF needed.   Bigfoot was a fringe topic in the past, I think it has only benefited from the ol mantra of Bad publicity is better than no publicity.