Protocols for analyzing audio

Protocols for analyzing audio

(Refer to instructions written in “In the Shadows - Audio Analysis in Bigfoot Research”))

1. When considering submitting audio to the Evidence Review Board there are things that will be required from the person submitting Audio to the Evidence Review


a. The entire audio file will be needed for the night/day that the suspected audio was recorded, or at least 2 hours before and 2 hours after the suspected vocalization was recorded. This will help to eliminate the possibility of human contamination and that the audio was manipulated. With the amount of hoaxing that goes on in the Bigfoot world, this is necessary.

b. An accurate location of where the audio was recorded will be needed. None of this information will be released to anyone outside the members of the Review Board. This will make it easier to verify the area could sustain an animal like Bigfoot as well as being able to research if there is other known activity in the area.

Any other activity that is reported in the area will help substantially in verifying the possible vocalizations. This will also help in determining the known animals of the area to compare the vocals.

c. The credibility of the person submitting will be taken into consideration. Any research organizations and related groups that you are associated with will be helpful. A phone number and email address will also be required. Some of the board members may call and talk to you in person if there are questions. Any false information will make for an automatic dismissal of the review process.

d. There will be a questionnaire that will need to be filled out. It should be fully filled out and if something doesn't apply it needs to be so stated. Some of the questions may be of a personal nature and any confidential information collected about locations, names of the landowners and other pertinent information collected to do the analysis will not be included in the reports.

e. One thing to remember is that the Evidence Review Board does these reviews in our spare time, so it can be a slow process. We will do all we can to get it done quickly after submission, but with family, jobs, and other things that normal people have, it may take a while.

f. After the MABRC has concluded the review, a report will be written and released in the manner as stated. The MABRC will be posting the report on its website in the appropriate area that is open to the public to view with ALL credit given to the submitter and any group affiliations.

g. The entire purpose for the review board is to make a public database of suspected Bigfoot evidence. With these animals being as complex as they appear to be, all credible evidence collected will hopefully help to prove the existence of the species. Any and all of the decisions of the review board will be made on the evidence submitted. And if in the future any new evidence comes forth to make a stronger or weaker case for the submitted evidence, the Review Board reserves the right to change the decision of the original submission, if warranted.

2. The Board will require the person submitting the audio to provide GPS coordinates or a snapshot of google maps, showing the exact location of the recorder when the suspected sounds were recorded. The Board will use the information to look for possible sources of the suspected sounds, such as nearby residences, nearby farms, etc.. In many cases, farm animals and domestic pets can make sounds that must be eliminated during analysis. The Board will not reveal the exact locations in the Board's public reports.

3. The Board will require the person submitting the audio to provide a spectrogram image of the suspected sound.

4. The Board will require the person submitting the audio to have compared the suspected sound with other known animals, and to provide the board with a list of audio files that were used for comparing the suspected sound.

5. When the Board begins an independent analysis of the suspected sound, the Board will use software applications, such as Audacity, for filtering audio, if needed, and for isolating the suspected sound(s).

6. Using Audacity, or similar software, the Board will listen to the sound played in reverse, to eliminate one possibility of an attempt to hoax.

7. Using Audacity, or similar software, the Board will develop a spectrogram of the suspected sound.

8. Using Audacity, or similar software, the Board will develop spectrograms of other known animals that could have made the suspected sound and compare the spectrograms for similarities and differences.

9. Using Google Maps, or a similar app, the Board will look for other sources of sounds, such as a nearby residence or farm, and attempt to eliminate them as sources for the sounds. For example, donkeys, hunting dogs, cattle, Guinea hens, peacocks, and domesticated wild animals may be responsible for some difficult to identify sounds.

10. Based on the analysis, the Board will formulate a response and an opinion that will be cited in the final report.