Sasquatch Chronicles Blog

Aug 30

ThinkerThunker: Never Before Heard Bigfoot Vocalizations

ThinkerThunker writes “A popular “Bigfoot” TV show recorded “never before heard” vocalizations. Were they “never before heard” for a reason? See and judge for yourself.”

23 Responses to “ThinkerThunker: Never Before Heard Bigfoot Vocalizations”

  8. Alexander R

    Expedition bigfoot has captured some half decent evidence. Both thermal, visual and trace.

    My guess is that they did capture legitimiate audio but the audio engineer during mastering repeated and overlayed the single call for additional effect in both instances. You see Ghost Adventures repkay good audio capture but they put a replay disclaimer on the video. I think the producers for exposition bigfoot should have done that here but fell short.

  9. Andrew S

    Literally means nothing. Thinker Thunker is some random “expert” behind a computer making money from a YouTube channel. I’m sure the sound engineers and editors of Expedition Bigfoot add things in for effect like the background noises, repeating a bowl, etc. However, it doesn’t delegitimize everything they record on the show. This show has very high production value, is well done and has shown lots of evidence. If any show could be accused of hyping up Bigfoot “proof” and never delivering, it was Finding Bigfoot. Expedition Bigfoot is the real deal and haters are gonna hate.

    • Nigel R

      “Adding things in for effect” is another way of saying ‘intentionally fabricating’.
      It discredits the topic and it’s supposed to.
      We’re supposed to conclude that big foot’s a load of nonsense.

  10. Nigel R

    How else it’s intentionally discrediting:
    – Presenting this as the world experts on bigfoot research
    – Making it overdramatised theatrics, the polar opposite of a scientific investigation.
    – Casting people like ‘Bubba’ (the village idiot) and this freaky looking lady.
    – Making it look like the Blair Witch Project
    – Adding eery background music and jump-scares
    They’re trying to make it look ridiculous, a joke.

  11. Alex M

    I really like ThinkerThunker and I respect all his work, but as someone in the industry, I can tell you Andrew S is correct. The most likely explanation for this, (and I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do), is that the team all personally heard a response that startled them and that they couldn’t explain away as being some known animal, but that they didn’t catch a very good recording of it and, for dramatic effect, the editorial department used the recorded howl to try to emulate what the team experienced for the audience at home. The unfortunate truth is a show like this isn’t setting out (from a production standpoint, I’m not talking about the team of researchers in the field) to collect evidence. They’re setting out to make a show that everyone at home will be entertained by and can follow. When they mic everyone they’re not simultaneously recording all the forest sounds and pointing parabolic microphones out into the field. In fact, to the contrary they’re most often doing everything they can to minimize all the background sounds so they can capture the dialogue between the team as cleanly as possible. Their goal is to record the group and put together an entertaining show for an audience. It’s much harder than most people think, no matter how good the equipment they have is, and no matter how big the budget, to both capture everything the team is doing on video and sound, while simultaneously monitoring all the sounds and sights of the forest. I’m not saying this show did nothing wrong. I’m not saying there’s no way they’ve fabricated anything. But the fact is, this video from TT does not prove they faked anything. It just proves that IF they got an actual credible BF response, then what they played for the audience in the edit wasn’t what they heard in the field. And like I said, that could very well be because they had a really big moment that everyone heard and got excited about, but it was far too distant to get a good recording of what they heard and they wanted to recreate something similar to what they heard for the audience to experience the drama of the situation. “Reality” shows often refilm or recreate actual moments that happened while they were out in the field that weren’t caught on camera…sometimes it’s an argument in the morning before the cameras were rolling, or sometimes it’s someone running way ahead of the cameraman because he or she thinks they saw something. Doesn’t mean they didn’t see something and didn’t run off to go get a better look. Just means that sometimes when you see that stuff on a show you might actually be seeing a recreation of that moment if the camera missed it. If the show isn’t presenting the evidence in in wav form for analysis, then they most likely didn’t capture it properly. So, for me, I’d prefer they let people know in text at the bottom of the screen that the sound you’re hearing isn’t the actual sound the team heard in the moment, but unless they’re releasing that audio as evidence to the world and trying to pass it off, or calling in experts for analysis, I’m not as concerned about moments like that where the editorial team is doing their best to recreate the drama of the moment for the audience at home. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they’re faking everything. I’m just saying, none of TT’s analysis of this audio is proof that they are.

    • Charles R

      Thank you for this Alex M, and I think it explains the production quite well. I know Finding Bigfoot railed against this type of production at the very beginning, that is do not insert fake things. A show just following Bigfoot researchers in the woods would be boring as hell, as are darn near all youtube videos of various research groups going about their activity, and would draw next to none audience. There are not many really good Bigfoot recordings out as most are to far away to hear what your ears hear, and phones are poor recording devices, except at very close range.

  12. Mark R

    I give ThinkerThunker the same dose of skepticism that I give the show producers. He has training in computer science and has written a book on the best way to capture video of bigfoot. Where are the bigfoot sights and sounds that he’s captured? As Wes has stated repeatedly, self appointed sasquatch experts aren’t experts.

    I don’t like the dramatics that Expedition Bigfoot adds but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capturing legitimate audio and video. Maybe it really was a creature they filmed standing up and walking up that hill or maybe it was fake. I’m willing to watch a debunking video by ThinkerThunker.

  16. Nigel R

    Scott O,
    What you don’t think ones been shot or caught?
    I’ve heard quite a few accounts of just that on Sasquatch Chronicles.
    If Sasquatch is real, they’ve got a body, at the very least.

  17. Mark R

    I will add that I think the best way to have an encounter is to just live your life. The one class A encounter I had was in the middle of a cloudless day while looking for arrowheads and other artifacts you would find in my rural area of Michigan. Sasquatch wasn’t on my radar until it happened and even then it took me quite a while to wrap my brain around the event. I wasn’t doing calls and tree knocks in the middle of the night. That’s where these shows kind of lose me.

    • Nigel R

      Mark R
      Exactly. If you’d had a film crew with you, the sasquatch would’ve heard you coming. They can probably pick up on the birds going quiet and stuff like that. We’re so outclassed at their game.

  18. Mark R

    Nigel R

    I agree. Even though I’ve logged thousands of miles in my Danner hiking boots and had them resoled too many times to count, I don’t live in the wild. I’m surrounded by it but that’s not the same. I was within 15 feet of that creature and had to have walked beyond it before it let me know it was there. I was clueless and I’m confident that I’ve been around them my whole life. They are very stealthy as are the coyotes, wolves, black bear, whitetails and cougars.

Leave a Reply