Friday, March 16, 2018

Bigfoot Audio Sound Analysis


Bigfoot Tony takes a look at a piece of audio recorded that some believe the be the vocalizations of a sasquatch. Have a listen and see what you think.

29 comments:

  1. Fantastic LARPing. No video to show whats making the sounds to expose the fraud? Absolutely perfect. We'll take 2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no need to doubt audio like this, because not only has Bigfoot audio has been scientifically examined, verified as genuine AND published by a university in the last couple of decades... But the creatures linked to such audio are leaving physical evidence that is now being peer reviewed.

      Stick that in your conspiracy theory crack pipe and smoke it.

      Delete
    2. Okay let's review:

      The audio of which you speak is referred to as the Sierra Sounds which was recorded FORTY FIVE YEARS AGO by the most sophisticated equipment available....common cassette tape recorders.

      Examined by ONE university - the University of Wyoming. Declared as authentic by a retired U.S. Navy crypto-linguist named Scott Nelson which sounds impressive but that training is 3-52 weeks and only requires a high school diploma and a talent for languages.

      To counter that we have this guy:

      https://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/07/07/linguistics-hall-of-shame-17/

      Here's HIS credentials:

      https://skepticalhumanities.com/2012/03/01/introducing-our-new-contributor-linguist-mark-newbrook/

      Here's another take by another Ph.D. in linguistics:

      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/bigfoot-in-mouth-bigfoot-language/

      Sierra Sounds can't be duplicated? Not according to this guy:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=104&v=ZHUrkFk7ZDo

      I can do the cut and paste every bit as much as ikdummy. I can produce experts every bit as much as ikdummy. I can be every bit as obnoxious as ikdum...oh wait, well he's got me there.

      Delete
    3. Anyone can cut & paste... Not everyone cringes people out quite like you do though, when you demonstrate an utter lack of basic knowledge of the things you’re patting yourself on the back for (cringe). Allow me to annihilate you. The study from the University of Wyoming and Scott Nelon’s analysis are two separate things (that’s right, after years of having this shoved in your face, you only go and embarrass yourself from the outside of your only attempt at a logical argument in ages). Here is the guy from Wyoming University who studied the Sierra Sounds and published it. You’ll notice he makes linguistics experts, and your (cough, cough) YouTube random look pretty irrelevant...

      “Lynn Kirlin grew up in Wyoming graduating from UW with BS and MS degrees in 1962 and 1963, respectively. Dr. Kirlin has had an engineering career spanning over 40 years including 33 years as a faculty member, first at the University of Wyoming and then at the University of Victoria. Over that time period, in addition to being an outstanding educator, Dr. Kirlin extensively interacted with the industry. What makes Dr. Kirlin particularly deserving of this award are his advanced technical contributions to a wide range of disciplines including seismic oil exploration, power electronic converters, array processing for sonar and radar applications, communication systems, and hearing-aid testing. He has published over 70 journal articles, 200 consultingcontract reports, 100 conference papers, and holds four patents. Software based on his patents has been used worldwide in seismic oil exploration. Dr.Kirlin was named a Fellow in the IEEE, which is the professional society of Electrical Engineers. In order to become a Fellow, one must have made momentous professional contributions which have made a significant impact on society. Less than one tenth of one percent of the IEEE professional society members become a Fellow. Of all of the Electrical Engineering Department's alums, he is the only to become an IEEE fellow. Throughout his career Dr. Kirlin held professional engineer's licenses both in Wyoming(1982-1988) and in British Columbia (1987-2002).”
      http://www.uwyo.edu/ceas/news/2012_jul_to_dec/120801/index.html

      “CONCLUSION REACHED BY DR. KIRLIN AND LASSE HERTEL ON THE SIERRA SOUNDS
      The results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male. The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration. Although a time-varying speed could possibly produce such formant distributions, an objective hearing and the articulation rate do not support that hypothesis. Statistical analysis was applied to groups of vocal tract estimates from different vocalizations and a significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with human data the results indicated that there could possibly be three speakers, one of which is non-human. The average vocal tract length was found to be 20.2 cm. This is significantly longer than for a normal human male. Extrapolation of average estimators, using human proportions, gives height estimates of between 6’4” and 8’2”.”
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      Delete
    4. So! We’ve of course been over this a few times before. One time you made a fool of yourself about not knowing that "formant frequencies found lower than for human data" amounts to infrasound (cringe). And another time you made a fool of yourself claiming that the people recording them were using "cheap recorders" when Al Berry, a journalist, was present to debunk the whole thing with his professional equipment (cringe), and you made an even bigger prat of yourself claiming that this device was not good enough to pick up infrasonic data, when the whole basis of the paper substantiates that and ten minutes looking at the source would have confirmed this. And now you go and embarrass yourself by blurring Nelson and Wyoming?

      Stick to conspiracy theories... it’s just too painful to watch.

      Delete
    5. The recordings were never tested for nasal consonants or nasal vowels which produce MORE antiresonances, you idiot ikdummy.

      You never provided spectrogram indications. Were the formants between 5000Hz and 8000Hz? Do you have ANY clue about sound or are you a chimpanzee cutting and pasting?

      Delete
    6. Now ikdummy is now a cut and paste sound expert.

      "You didn't know that coulomb relates to per square metre C/m2 electric displacement field, polarization density m−2⋅s⋅A??????"

      iktomi didn't know what a Freudian Slip was after it was REPEATEDLY explained to him but he cuts and pastes sound experts paragraph like he's Alexander Graham Bell.

      Delete
    7. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

      All the data you need is in a book called Manlike Monsters on Trial. You didn’t even have a clue that Nelson didn’t have a thing to do with the University of Wyoming, don’t pretend that data doesn’t exist, or that you have the first clue what you’re talking about. If testing occurred and the study was published by a university, then the formant frequencies lower than human data would have needed to have accompanied it and do. Someone with the resume and credentials of Kirlin would have needed to have provided data. It’s as simple as that, and it’s all in the book. I published an article with a summary and Layman’s terms. The most embarrassing thing here is (I didn’t go think it could have gotten any worse), you’ve spent time cutting and pasting things from the internet to desperately make out you know what you’re talking about... and devised arguments that you can’t even be sure are relevant, on data you don’t even know exists or not. Shall we look at a concept you’ve been butchering of late?

      Straw man
      noun
      noun: strawman
      1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
      "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

      ... However, I wouldn’t say you’ve made anything easier for yourself. Just looked even more incompetent. And you didn’t even know what Freudian slip meant until I used it to make you look silly.

      Delete
    8. Actually... Google Books, the book’s title and specifically pages 288/289. You’ll find all the formulas and workings out; essentially the evidence for the conclusions drawn.

      If you’re such an “expert” on formants, you’ll have no trouble debunking it. Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    9. Oh and Stuey! So much for your PhD on linguistics...

      “What is unfortunate is we were hoping her critique would come more from a linguist perspective, but her conclusion, as you will read below, is that looking into Bigfoot language is putting the cart before the horse. She thinks we should be looking for a body first. Not only is this a disappointment, because it would have been great to get another linguist's perspective, but it also a flawed argument. If this was the prevailing logic we would have never tried to decipher the cuneiform text left on clay tablets by the Sumerians.”
      http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2013/07/linquists-battle-over-bigfoot-language.html

      ... Oh dear. And I’m currently dissecting your other link as we speak.

      Delete
    10. Yeah, just as I thought... the best your first source can muster, is to merely question Nelson’s credentials as a linguist (when he has in fact helped transcribe an ancient Russian dialect, is fluent in Russian, Spanish and Persian). And claims the phonology of Bigfoot-language can’t be accurate, because in his opinion, this is “implausibly similar to those of Indo-European languages and in particular to that of English”. “Bigfoot” is human, and has for many hundreds of years been described as using regional native dialects, thus suggesting that English is not out of the realms of possibility, and is in fact reported by many who have interacted with them.

      Delete
    11. Holy smackdown Batman !!!!
      Iktomi just handed Stewie his arse on a plate !
      Happy St Patty's day Stu ! Pleasant dreams of PGF while trying to avoid Leprechauns yanking at your knickers
      top o the mornin' to ya sunshine !
      Cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    12. Happy St Patrick's day Iktomi !
      Keep schooling the trolls !
      Cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    13. Joe Fitzgerald is completely clueless. He thinks he's dealing with one poster when I can discern there is at least two others besides myself right here on these very comments. Let the links and comments speak for themselves. No amount of bluster and cherry-picking can prove Bigfoot into existence. He desperately will take the opinion of a few over thousands if it supports his views. But that is usually the stance when one's faith is challenged and make no mistake - Bigfoot IS his religion.

      Delete
    14. One of us has the scientific method... the other has conjecture, contradictions and conspiracy theories.

      And there is one troll. There has only ever been one troll... and there will only ever be one troll.

      Delete
    15. 7:36- so what is your religion ? let me guess, you are from the church of James Randi so by nature you refuse to believe in anything til you are told it exists by Randi. Do you know how many times people have hindered progress because of non belief in things most people thought were impossible ?
      Don't drink too much green beer today mate
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    16. ^ One of the disciples. Prays everyday for Bigfoot's existence. A prayer that will go unanswered.

      Delete
    17. ^ Curse and pout all you want but your prayers will go unanswered. Have a nice day!

      Delete
    18. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence. How this is relevant to our situation, is that there is reason to invest enthusiasm in the subject matter based on the accumulated data that accounts for the experiences of tens of thousands of people, spanning different cultures, that is supported by means of physical evidence that can't be scientifically shown to be false.

      Religions requires faith, and how this is relevant to your situation is that you have nothing but dataless opinion void of any scientific factual basis, with a requirement to be devoted in expressing your sentiment at every opportunity.

      Delete
    19. Talk about having nothing. All this and not one piece of evidence that actually proves Bigfoot exists. It all boils down to faith. A pity your prayers will never be answered. But that's okay because role-playing is fun!

      Delete
    20. How are you getting on with demonstrating there’s no evidence? Oh that’s right... take a look at this comment section for example.

      (Creased)

      One need not pray, one has peer reviewed data. One need to role-play, as one is turned off by seeing someone using it daily via a conspiracy theory.

      Delete
    21. @10:43,,,,,,Science needs to acknowledge my GASPING & GAPEING ASSHOLE,,,via some good ole fashioned research in,,THIS INSTANT!!!!!!

      Delete
    22. Science cannot answer until it is peer-reviewed. Get your head in there ikdummy and peer review it.

      Delete
    23. You want the name of the peer review again?

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/frightening-stories-from-hiking.html?m=0

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-squatch-detective-steve-kulls-talks.html?m=0

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/bigfoot-stalks-man-during-day-hike-at.html?m=0

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/surrounded-by-bigfoot-noises.html?m=0

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/encounters-with-real-cryptids.html?m=0

      Delete
    24. There’s all the comment sections you embarrassed yourself about it. With “ikdummy” references to boot.

      Delete