on the Marlin owners forum.....Wolf, Bigfoot or?.....

Damn, the one on Courtney's page with the rock knocking is spooked out...

I'd say it's a wolf howl.

I'm thinking a wolf howl as well. It just doesn't have that massive howl for it to be a Bigfoot.

Um....are there wolves in central Illinois????? I just don't think it is a wolf......sounds like dog to me. I had a husky mix dog that howled like that, I also have had a pure breed husky, and he would howl like that too.



Sail

FWIW,
This does'nt sound like any canine vocalization that I've ever heard.The high pitched note at the end is vaguely canid,but the rest ...

Wonder what he used to record it with, no static or background noise, sounds more like it was made with an audio program. IMHO

Sounds bovine to me. A mother cow looking for her calf. JMO

Hope this helps Darkwing.

"I am using a Marantz PMD 670 solid state recorder and Audio-Technica
Pro 37 R cardioid condenser microphone. No amplification was used as
it was very close to the backyard."

Stan

Thanks Artslave,
Still the lack of background noise is a point needing to be taken up on this, I do lots of recordings, even with digital camcorders and there is always background noise or some static that can be heard. Attempts to clean it up always distorts the sound of the recording. I will look into the equipment used there and see what the specs are and the quality.



Edited to say, I gots to get me one of those recorders, that is slick. Checked it out on their website and it is sweet. Records direct to a SD card.

http://www.d-mpro.com/users/folder.asp?Fol...82&Tab=Overview

This howl has been exciting the experts of BFRO recently... I think any reasonably good outdoorsperson can identify that as a coyote howl, a pretty classic one.

The so called howl, IMHO, sounds like it has a little human quality to attached, something like Tarzan use to do. Sorry, I know that dates this writer.
BbaH! :new_whistle:

I lived in Central IL for over 15 years and live in S. IL now and I can guarantee that is a coyote. I've heard that exact sound many times while spotlighting coyotes in the fields behind my house.

it does sound a bit like a wolf howl but it is prolly just the recording. A coyote usually sounds much higher pitched and has yelps with it.

I agree, if it is a coyote it’s not what I typically hear. The DNR advise that they are no wolf’s in this area, although I’ve heard a wolf like howl a few times. So I don't have any thing but what I’ve heard on TV to compare to a wolf howl.

It sounds more like a human imitating a wolf cry. My neighbor had a cow one time that made the strangest vocal and it did it a lot. If you had not been aware of what it was ya would have never guessed that it was a cow. I guess it had a problem with its voice box.

:new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Wow, awesome sound! Creepy, play it over and over...but the deal is...it's a creepy sound. Sorry, dog, I'm not wit ya on this one

I'm smelling a 2-part combo sound file. Wolf plus 'mystery sound'. Somebody screwing around with computer inputs. It just reaks of prefab maintenance. Not real at all. My 2 cents.

I'm with you WooleyBooger......

When Stan Courtney presented this coyote howl to the BFRO it sounded a little different, less deep. It seems like the play speed on this version is slowed down or something.

It isn't slowed down, and it's not manipulated in any way. Stan has gotten three recordings of basically the same vocal over three different nights. The first one was from a bit further away and included some natural reverb. It is the "spookiest" sounding. The second one is from closer in, with much less reverb. It has a doglike quality in at least one part, but it isn't a coyote. At least, I haven't been able to find any coyote noises that get as deep as this. Wolf howls are similar, but also have some characteristic features that are absent from Stan's file. Of course, I haven't heard every noise a dog (or even any individual wolf) can make.

The third is similar to the 2nd. All three vocalizations are very similar in their windup and phrasing.

I am sure the files weren't manipulated. I've looked at these sounds very closely in my software, and if there had been any monkey business like overdubs, I'd have been able to see it.

What I'd like to have happen, if it were at all possible, is for someone who has actually seen a bigfoot vocalizing (a very small number of people I know) to comment on how that compares to this vocal. Because I've had some folks who believe they've heard a bigfoot comment that it sounded like Stan's file.

I don't know what it was that made Stan's sounds, but I'm interested to learn as much about it as possible. These files have an oddness to them that I'd like to pin down. I believe they could be a bigfoot vocalizing, even while I agree it has canine-sounding characteristics. The idea that bigfoot consciously mimics the sounds of other animals is not new to us. If it does, there is hopefully a way to differentiate one from another. It's also true that it's within human capability to make similar noises, but I don't believe for a second someone is out in Stan's area yelling like that. Very few people know where he's doing this research.

Well, it's still a coyote. Or, as you say, it could be a bigfoot doing a coyote impression. (Or it could be just a coyote.)

Personally, I believe that "any reasonably good outdoorsman" would not consider this a "classic" coyote howl at all.... far from it, IMHO. I have logged many, many hours in and around the woods, but have yet to hear a coyote (or anything else, for that matter) sound similar to that. With that being said, it certainly is within the realm of possibility that this is a unique/odd sounding coyote, for the species definitely has a wide range of vocalizations that vary from place to place, and individual to individual.... but this is not their typical howl. I would go with a Husky, Coy-Dog or Wolf/Dog mix before anything else..... but with guarded confidence. The jury is out.

It does sound like a wolf, It doesn`t seem to have a big range in sounds

I know nothing of sound manip or changes made digitally. The only thing I know is that recording made the hair on the backof my neck stand up ( and my arms). And, like some of the other recordings attributed to BF, I have several cats that were sound asleep and awoke, not liking the sounds. I have listened to a bunch of wolf and coyote sounds, and barely get an ear twitch and no physical reaction from myself. So, I am paying attention to the followups on this.

Howdy folks...

Just my 2 pennies it does sound like it's from the canine (dog) family...

Incidently while I was playing it our little mutt started howling like it too ( sounded pretty close)

I talked to Stan about his recordings, and gave him my opinion on his already..canine all the way, IMO. As to this, this sounds like a dog, pure and simple. Run it through Audacity, compare that to any number of husky or other dog howls, and the sonograms look essentialy the same.
I've also heard coyotes make essentialy the same sound, although not generaly that deep. I've also heard bear hounds, coon hounds, and even beagles, make similar...there's just no reason to even be using bandwidth on this one. Someone has a dog that sounds off for whatever reason in the night..not unusual at all, and central Illinois is not exactly lacking in farms, or farm dogs.
All IMO, of course :wink:

I can't find any that look essentially the same. Can you send me the file you compared it to? There are many dog howls out there to compare, but most of them are of a much higher pitch. The ones I've found with a lower pitch do not sound or look similar enough for me support your conclusions.

Here's a couple of pics from a recent attempts made in SoundRuler, first Stan's 4-7-2006 sound. They are not really very useful, but they are something to look at:

Click to view attachment

Now a dog from "Sounddogs.com" that had a deeper howling voice:

Click to view attachment

I don't know how to make these images show in the text here.. but looking at them will show you some differences between them. The sounds both appear to be relatively close to the microphone. The dominant frequency of the identified dog is recorded by SoundRuler to be 430Hz, the fundamental 215Hz. A human can make these tones, but you would have a hard time sounding just like a dog when you did it.

Stan's sound has a main frequency of 689Hz and a fundamental of 344Hz, again according to SoundRuler.

SoundRuler is a free application, now several years old (a new version is promised this year) that does have limitations. I think it was made for birders, for instance, and may therefore be based on assumptions that aren't so good for large mammals.

In SoundForge, a completely different program (that costs money) you can look at prettier sonograms, but I can't get captures of them easily. I can also watch the PowerGraph in real time, and see where all the power of the call is going. (It was by doing this that I noticed the strange features of some suspected bigfoot calls I mentioned more than a year ago, but that I have not been able to do anything of merit with since..)

By looking at the sounds in the SoundForge Powergraph window, I can see how the frequencies are interrelating. For instance, Stan's howl gets "dirty" several times, where the voice is no longer producing a clear note, but instead is moving into the growly "noise" range. We know that dogs can do that, but so can any other mammal that has enough voice, including man, and anything that roars. The dog file I have does a little of it at the beginning of its call too. So there is a similarity between them. But they do not match in where they use this modulation of the sound. You might not expect them to, but then we also all know the classic wolf call, and how that modulates. It's a classic because wolves do it, rather than using a completely chaotic repretoir of noises such that we can detect no pattern. This is not a major point, but so far as it goes, Stan's sound isn't matching what other dog calls I can find do in the way that it modulates its call. So it sounds like what a dog can do, but it sounds different from my dog examples. Make sense?

Here's another difference. You can see that both calls are very close to the microphone, as nature sounds go, because the high end information is well preserved above the noise-floor. I limited my view to around 4.2KHz so that I could see the fine details of what was going on in there, and both sounds gave me numbers in the 3.8-3.9KHz range. So insofar as distance from microphone goes, it appears there isn't a difference that makes a distinction. But the dog sound looks absolutely normal, hitting almost all its harmonics on the way up. These are the rough numbers in Hz:

420 648 850 1073 1269 1508 1720 2521 2997 3260 3417 3895

The fundamental frequency is at about 220Hz here, so every number above should be a multiple of 220. The differences are because of measurement errors and the fact we are using software that wasn't designed to do exactly what we're asking it to do. I have to hold the mouse cursor and read the number, write it down, etc. So 850 ought to be 860, or the fundamental was perhaps closer to the 215Hz that SoundRuler gave us (though SoundRuler was giving us the average, and I'm taking a snapshot of the "moving" sound, so we can expect this kind of difference).

Stan's sound is a little different.

662 971 1309 xxxx 1960 2270 2615 xxxx xxxx xxxx 3936

There are gaps, and the numbers don't match the fundamental as closely as the dog's sound did.

These are two important points, I think, to bear in mind. The sound sounds weird to us for these reasons -- it doesn't conform to what we normally expect. I can explain the fact that the numbers don't match the fundamental, which ought to be around 340Hz according to SoundRuler, because the noise this animal is making is dirtier than the sound the dog is making. It's much more like a roar than the dog's howl is, even at those points where it sounds relatively clear. What this means is that when I move my cursor looking for the peak, I have a lot of wiggle room. In figurative words, I choose the highest relative peak on a plateau. The frequency looks like a plateau because the animal was introducing distortion into its voice -- kind of like a guitar with a stomp box. Use enough of that distortion and you just get a noisey roar. Use a little, and it sounds cool. I don't know enough about dogs and their barks to say that dogs don't do this sometimes in exactly this way, but I don't have any sound files of them doing it.

Nightwing may have some and if he does I hope he'll share them with me.

About the gaps I am just confused. I can explain the upper gaps away due to distance, although that peak at 3.9KHz was a good one. I expected the other peaks to be there. Maybe if I focused down in on those frequencies, I'd find them, but then we'd still have to explain why they had been so damped when other frequencies hadn't. I checked some of Stan's other files of other animals in the same location, and it doesn't appear that there is any environmental reason for it. And I noted the same kind of gapping in the other files with this same animal doing its call. I don't know what it means, but I am entertaining the idea that it means something.. The gap where the 1.6KHz peak should be is a strange one.

I wish we had more good quality recordings of things we think are bigfoot so I could compare them looking for these features. As it is, the best of what I've been able to get is nowhere near the quality of these two files I'm using in this post. To compare them would be like comparing a picture in your hand with one you had to look at 100yds away through binoculars. You can't expect to get useful results.

I could say more but as usual, this has gone on long enough..

So while I won't come out and say, "Yes, this is it, this is a bigfoot call," I'm not writing these sounds off. I really want someone to give me a file that shows a dog making essentially the same noise, because Stan's sounds completely destroyed that hypothesis I had cooking last year. They don't show any double - fundamental features, except during the moments where echo reflects back into the sound in the file that was recorded furthest away. If this is really a bigfoot, my little theory is dead, or at least, in intensive care. But that's the way this thing works, and I'm ready to bury that theory and shed my tears if that's what comes of it.

OR, I'm ready to get the proof that Stan's sound is a dog.

I'm REALLY ready to get a clear sound file from someone who recorded a sasquatch that they saw making the call. Anyone got one?

coyote. nuff said.

I am not an animal expert, but I will say the coyote was making a strong comeback in the southern Wisconsin, Northern Illinois area before I moved to texas in september of last year.

I agree with those who are saying coyote.

edited for a typo -- oops

Gotta go with Nightwing here, definitely canine.

This sounds odd, but it sounds like a coyote that has a tonality problem. Almost like it has the last half of his howl there, but the first half sounds like the same tone of that dog that used to say "ma-ma" on The Late Show.
I'd put my money on a coyote if I had to pick something, we have packs of them around here that sound off all the time. But it could be a farm dog, but it's definitely canine in nature.

Oh yeah, forgot - IMO. :wink:

Can any of you point me to a coyote file that sounds like Stan's recording? I've got dozens, and have seen hundreds of coyote files, but I haven't found one that sounds low like this. They are all the high pitched yelping -- the coyotes you hear in the movies. Help me out.

I'd be happy to if I knew where there were some.

I can pretty much walk out my front door right now and hear them, I'm not kidding when I said we have packs of them here. They are getting so bold, my neighbor who raises cattle has to shoot them all the time. When one of his cattle are giving birth, the coyotes are sitting there, ready to eat the calf when it is born, in broad daylight.

Are you willing to walk out your door with an mp3 recorder and get a good recording then? It's something we all need, up to date coyote calls that are not just like all the others you've heard before. I want to see whether they are doing the same things that Stan's "coyote" was doing.

Can you direct me to where I can get one that's sorta cheap? I'm disabled, and kinda low on $$. If I had one, no problemo. Getcha all the calls, howls, yelps you want.

http://www.stancourtney.com/sounds/04.04.2006IllinoisHowl.mp3 ://http://www.stancourtney.com/sounds/...linoisHowl.mp3 ://http://www.stancourtney.com/sounds/...linoisHowl.mp3 ://http://www.stancourtney.com/sounds/...linoisHowl.mp3

http://www.westcoast-sasquatch.com/coyote2.MP3

I found this one on Amazon.com. I don't know how good it is but for $19 (after rebate) it's probably worth trying out.

MP3 Player at Amazon.com

If you don't like that one, run a search with "MP3 player voice recorder" as your search text and you'll find a whole lot of them. This was the cheapest that came up for me.

Thanks, will check that one out.

That first coyote howl in coyote2.mp3 is very interesting, because it has an extra note in it. This is a snapshot of the frequency range of the first call in that file (in Hz).

651 991 1204 1330

SoundRuler says the fundamental is at 344. Taking that as true, you can see that 651 + 344 = 995. That's pretty close to the 991 I got from using the cursor in the software. Adding 344 again, we get 1335, pretty close to the 1330 I measured. What shouldn't be there at all is the 1204Hz frequency peak. If you listen to the sound you can hear the coyote making that characteristic dog-like "warble" sound. I think the numbers here account for the sound. Dogs can do that warble, and you often hear it in coyotes.

But what you don't see is the plateau-ing of the frequency peaks I mentioned before. It's not in this coyote file. But the voice does sound similar to Stan's sound. I would like to find a sound that has nearly exactly the characteristics that are in Stan's file, if that's possible.

Also, this file is not near the quality of Stan's file in terms of closeness of the animal and there is also filtering apparent when I look at it in the software. It looks like someone has put an EQ curve on it sloping downwards from about 1.5KHz. There's also information loss under 450Hz. If you can get ahold of the unfiltered file, I'd love to see it.

Some housekeeping to get out of the way -- what's the provenance of that file? How sure are you that it is coyote? It's very helpful to have it, so knowing where it came from is in order.

I think that warble in the coyote2.mp3, when added to the reverb present in most long-distance sounds, pretty much accounts for what I had been interested in last year. I think, given that this is truly a coyote calling, that my theory is a dead theory (not that many of you will remember it!) I also think that a good many of our "bigfoot" calls may simply be owls and coyotes recorded at a good distance, which makes it sound "spooky and mournful" when the reverb and echo interact with the sound coming to the microphone.

I don't say this because it "sounds like" it when I listen. Our ears are tools, but we really can't check them in any scientifically reliable way. I say it because they look similar in the software. That's a little closer to scientifically valid, because any one of us can look at the files, and will, with patience and time spent learning the software, probably come to pretty well agree on what is seen there. I think doing it takes this subject further away from subjective interpretation and makes it a little more objective.

But Stan's file is still different in some intriguing ways. All I want to see now is a good close coyote that does what Stan's "coyote" did.

Forgive my ignorance, but I've never used one of these things.

Can you record audio with it? Or just put audio on it? I mean, can you set it outside and hit a record button to record the sounds? Is this type of thing what people may use in school to record lectures or something? I just want to make sure I'm getting the right thing, that one is cheap enough, and I'll order it tonight if it does what I want.
Thanks.

If it claims to do "voice recording" then yes, it's like a little tape recorder (except it records a digital file of some sort - each one is a little different).

The only thing that might come up is the question of getting the files off the mp3 player and into a format that you can get shipped around. You need an audio editor to do that sort of thing, but there are free ones.. I think Audacity is free, actually. I haven't used it yet but if you really are going to do this, I'll check it out so I could help when the time came. Maybe even work up a text file that explains all the ins and outs of the process. The more people out there recording, the better. And the price of the mp3 recorders keeps going down.

Ok, thanks for the info.

If anyone else is reading this, and can tell me if this thing can do what I want it to, let me know.

My son is damn good with the computer stuff, if I can't figure out how to set it up as a sound file, he can if anyone can. I'd like to order it, but it will be of no use to me if it doesn't have some kind of record button or feature on it.

It says that it does, Scotto, in the Item profile:

"There's also a voice recorder mode so you can record thoughts when they strike you."

Also handy, you don't need a cord for it, because it has its own USB plug right on the unit.

That's all I need to know, thanks bro, I'm ordering it.

PM me your email, so I can send you the files when I get some good ones.

Why don't we all catch a breath...and see what has been provided for us in 'previous' posts..on the subject in this thread????

I am flummoxed that this conversation continues!
But you guys figure it out

I can't figure out where you got your file unless you tell me. All I need is your word: are you sure it's a coyote (as against, for instance, another kind of canine) and where does the file come from?

Let us never forget nor underestimate the usefulness of the simple in any investigation..... which in this case is a well-trained and experienced human ear. Yes, of course, recordings and files are helpful tools in comparative analysis, but nothing can or will be proven despite their aid. Naturally, the same can be said in regard to ear/memory use.....in that it is subjective and sometimes unreliable. However, in this case, I will say again with confidence that my ears have never heard a coyote (with literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of past vocalizations in my memory bank to use for comparative purposes) make such a noise. Again, it is of course possible. An individual member of any species can show great and unique variance(Pavarotti comes to mind). But, with that in mind, the statistical probability of actually hearing/recording such an individual is slim to none........ and it seems slim has just left town. :new_cowboy:

I've gone looking in other threads, and I see that the file Gerry gave us came, through Wolftrax, from a website that collects sounds with the aim of disproving sasquatch was responsible for any of them. They do not say that they observed coyotes making that particular noise, but they do mention that they saw a coyote in their night-vision during the night they made the recordings.

So here we have this situation:

1. these folks were disinclined to believe anything they recorded was due to the vocalization of a sasquatch (which they do not believe exists)
2. they recorded an unusual vocalization
3. they saw a coyote
4. they concluded the coyote made the vocalization

I'm putting it in my mental files, because the proximity of the coyote does mean it could have made the sound. But most of us who go out doing this thing know that almost everywhere, you are almost always in the proximity of a coyote.

In the case of the Chehalis coyote, after reading the thread from Thomas Steenberg and Gerry, I regard that a much better situation in identifying the caller with a coyote vocal, but I've never heard the Chehalis mp3 in a condition from which I could glean any useful information. The copy I got from WCS, through a link on Cryptomundo, was so clipped and distorted that there wasn't anything to be seen above the noisefloor, even after using my noise reduction software. What you could just make out if you focused your ears, though, sounded much higher in pitch than Stan's recording. And the recordings it has been used to discredit, the Pulyap, for instance, are similar in being higher in pitch than Stan's.

So it looks as if we have a situation where someone witnessed a coyote making a call that sounds like a purported set of sasquatch calls, and now we're generalizing from that to throw out all suspected sasquatch calls, and using unsupported data to do it.

If one of *us* can get the recording of the coyotes doing this kind of call, and can provide reasonable assurances that we saw the coyote doing it (which is going to be hard, I know) then we will be able to put such calls on the shelf and say, "not distinct enough from your average coyote to be useful". You can't say, "coyote did it," no matter how similar it sounds, unless you see the coyote doing it. This is because we don't know what kinds of sounds sasquatch can make. We know that they do make sounds, because they've been observed making them. Unfortunately, they've never been recorded while being observed.

An important point that always gets missed in this kind of discussion is that it's the sasquatch that is the unknown, not the coyote. You should be able to prove to a reasonable degree, given enough time and manpower, exactly what kinds of sounds coyotes make. There are many more of them, for one thing, and they aren't shy about vocalizing while we are nearby recording. So I hope Scotto gets a good recording of them from his back yard, and has some visual indication that it's the coyote making the noise.

Even if you can't see the coyotes, though, the recordings will be of value. The value increases if you can say, "there's no way we've got sasquatches back here because.." In my case, if I recorded any sounds from my back yard, there's virtually no chance it came from a sasquatch as I live well within the boundaries of a vast urban area, with no easy access route in or out. But we've got red and gray foxes, bobcats, and plenty of other animals that make strange noises. I keep my ears open, particularly, to hear one of those "women being murdered" screams of a bobcat. I haven't heard that, but I did hear two bobcats fighting, and that was a ruckus for sure. But it never sounded like it wasn't feline.

In the case of Stan's file, we have something that does have canine characteristics, but that also has some strange features. I described them above, but I know they won't mean anything to anyone who doesn't get into sound. I'd just like to see a coyote file, from something we know or have very good reason to believe is a coyote, have the same features that I described. In asking for this I am NOT saying that I don't think it's a coyote -- I don't have a solid opinion on what it is. I think it's interesting enough to investigate, and I think we probably have the resources right here to make some headway.

Of course it would be very nice to get a real scientist interested, but that's not going to happen as we all know by now. It's left up to us, amateurs that we are.

Scotto, my email address is simlply my name with an at and a gmail dot com added. I'll be interested in any files you might get, and I can help you learn how to get the files off your mp3 player. You'll want to get a copy of Audacity.

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/windows

This is the stable version for Windows. You can't see very much useful info in the stock version of Audacity, but you should be able to use it to edit the files you take off your mp3 player, and even to convert them to mp3s if that's not the native file format on your player (but you have to have the LAME mp3 converter on your computer to do it -- we'll cross that bridge if we need to when the time comes).

Anyone else interested in doing this, I'm willing to help any way I can.

I found that .MP3 file [which I named coyote2] at the
Ohio/Pennsylvania Bigfoot Research Group. Thnx to Wolftrax for the heads up.

Click Here!

Then visit sounds and videos



you will also find owl vocalizations.

[Edited to add...]
Oooops!
I see you're waaaay ahead of me.

Frankly I'm stunned that anyone would continue to debate that this howl is anything but a coyote or at least some kind of a four-legged, hairy, long-snouted, canine-type animal.

If you listen to the long version (at stancourtney.com) near the beginning you can clearly hear classic coyote pack "chatter/whimper" sounds, then the dog starts barking. The fact that there is a clear coyote presence at that exact time is, IMHO, a reason to say coyote, not BF. Plus there are several that are clearly, again IMHO, coyotes on his site.

I said this on a previous post but I'll say it again, I have lived in IL almost all of my 38 years and lived in central IL for about 15 of those years. I live in S. IL now. I have camped and canoed from one end of this state to the other. I have heard that sound on many occassions and I can tell you it ain't BF. I'll go so far as to say that the odds of there being a BF in central IL to be slim to none. There's a reason IL is called the "Prairie State", 'cause it's full of open, mostly flat land. Especially in the central part. I can buy the supposition that BF might be in the southern tip in the Shawnee National forest (large area of very rugged and hilly land) or around that area but not in the wooded areas in the central part.

If the coyotes that were here last summer show up again I may be able to get a recording but I can't promise anything. I heard it 3 or 4 times last year.

What I don't understand is why, when there is no evidence (that has been presented) to even suspect that it could be a BF and testimony to the opposite, that people will continue to hold on to such a flimsy debate. They say "Show me the proof that it is a coyote. Nah, nah, na, na, nah" (Okay, i added the na, na's, but you get the idea :new_whistle: ) when they can't show a dang thing that says BF even makes a sound in any way similar to that. Heck, nobody can even prove that BF even makes any noise besides personal testimony but that ain't good enough for coyotes even when we know they exist! :icon_bang:

Show be a film, with sound, :popcorn2: of a BF vocalizing, tree banging, and/or breaking trees into shapes that mean something and then I'll believe that BF does those things. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim: But until then I'll just keep thinking that BF might exist and we don't know squat about it if it does. Might BF do those things? Sure, but don't tell me anyone knows anything for sure if ya' can't prove BF even exists.

You're stunned and Gerry is flummoxed, but that only shows you haven't been paying attention.

1. If it's a coyote making that sound, we don't want to go on your word or anyone else's word, we want hard scientific proof. Don't we? It should be easy enough to collect a sound that is identical to Stan's sound since so many of our posters live with coyotes all around them.

2. If it's not a coyote but some other animal, yet not a sasquatch, that's useful information and I would like to pursue it.

3. If it's a sasquatch and they sound like a dog sometimes, it would be useful to know that.

As it is, you and Gerry are positive it's a coyote, but here's the thing -- the files shown so far as matches for Stan's sound don't match. It's true that they all have the frequency 600Hz in common, but Stan's sound has a fundamental of 300Hz, while the known coyotes have a fundamental at 600Hz. This has been shown upthread but you guys don't go in for crossing t's and dotting i's, you would rather say, "I know that's a coyote."

I think a whole lot of us face that same kind of thinking when most scientists say, "I know bigfoot doesn't exist" and then decline to investigate furhter.

Frankly, I'm stunned, flummoxed, that some people don't realize how being thorough is in everyone's interest.

Get me some coyotes that start their song at 300Hz. That's all I ask. I'm *happy* if we can prove Stan's mystery singer is a coyote. The word there is "prove" -- so far, you guys haven't tried to prove anything, you've just asked us to take you at your word.