One of the most significant new recordings was recorded by DB Donlon in April of 2007 in Ohio. This new sound clip soon became known to the bigfoot community.
The recording was brought to the attention of Ron Morehead of  Sierra Sounds, who thought it was significant enough to mention it in July of 2007 while a guest on
COAST TO COAST AM WITH GEORGE NOORY
Ron includes a link on his website to the sound clip.
Coast to Coast displayed the following notice on its main webpage.
This information was originally posted on my website about a year and a half ago.
When THE BLOGSQUATCHER started his blog this was the topic of one of his earlier posts. So you may want to check out this information also over on his blog for Thursday, October 11, 2007 titled:
The voice of bigfoot? The Illinois Howl
———————————————————————————
The Illinois Howl
This post will attempt to answer some of the following questions:
What is the Illinois Howl?
What animal is making these vocalizations?
What are its characteristics?
What does it sound like compared to other animals?
What does it look like graphically compared to other animals?
Why am I wasting my time on something so obvious?
What is the Illinois Howl?
The Illinois Howl is the vocalizations of presently an unseen and unknown animal. They were first recorded on the 4th of April, 2006. It was recorded five times that spring. I record nature sounds every night. The following five clips have been cleaned up to eliminate rumbling and hiss.
05.24.2006 Illinois Howl
This was recorded at 04:14 in the morning.
05.18.2006 Illinois Howl
This was recorded at 01:30 in the morning.
04.12.2006 Illinois Howl
This was recorded at 11:58 in the evening.
04.07.2006 Illinois Howl
This was recorded at 4:45 in the morning.
04.04.2006 Illinois Howl
This was recorded at 3:45 in the morning.
The complete series of recorded howls can be found at:
Illinois Howl Recordings
What animal is making these vocalizations?
There are many opinions as to the origins of these sounds. Opinions range from coyote, coy-dog, dog, wolf, fox, bigfoot, cow.
As an attempt to get an answer I posted this question and a poll on many of the outdoor forums on the internet. These discussions can be found at:
Unusual Howl – 24 Hour Campfire
What Do You Think Of This One? – Bigfoot Forums
What Kind Of Howl Is This?? – Bigfoot Forums
What Animal Do You Think This Is? – Bigfoot Forums
Unusual Howl – Graybeards Outdoors Forum
What Animal Do You Think This Is? – Graybeards Outdoors
Unusual Howl – Jesses Hunting & Outdoors (JHO) Forum
Unusual Howl – Marlinowners Forums
What kind of howl is this? – Rimfirecentral
Unusual Illinois Howl – Shooters Forum
Unusual Howl – US Hunting Forums
What are its characteristics?
On the five recordings it exhibits several traits that are discernible on all five. The howl starts out as a low volume sound that seems like it is just clearing its throat. It then delivers three somewhat equal volume howls. The second and third howl are spaced a little bit further apart than the first and second howl. The waveform in Cool Edit 2 Pro looks like –
DB Donlon has done extensive research on this sound and has written the following analysis:
Stan’s sound has a main frequency of 689Hz and a fundamental of 344Hz, 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. I can also watch the PowerGraph in real time, and see where all the power of the call is going. 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:
Dog Howl: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.
Illinois Howl:
xxx 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.
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.
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 will say that I doubt this call was made by a coyote, as has been hypothesized elsewhere, or any other mammal smaller than a large dog. All the coyote calls I have have a fundamental at around 600Hz, much too high to be the Illinois Howler.
If it’s a dog or a wolf, we ought to be able to find matches for the Illinois Howl that have already been recorded, or get new clean recordings of the howls with the animals under observation.
What does it sound like compared to other animals?
For comparison let’s look at the Illinois Howl and three other known animals.
Click on each link for the mp3 of each animal:>
What does it look like graphically compared to other animals?
Visually each animals howl is seen in the waveform view. I have used Adobe Audition 2.0 as the sound editor:
Belle, my Karelian Bear Dog
Coyote (Canis latrans)
Illinois Howl
Wolf (Canis lupus)
Then each animal’s howl is seen in the spectral view:
Belle, my Karelian Bear Dog
Coyote (Canis latrans)
Illinois Howl
Wolf (Canis lupus)
Why am I wasting my time on something so obvious?
Many people have stated that it is quite obvious that the Illinois Howl is nothing other than a coyote or dog, certainly canine. They wonder why I would be so naive to suggest that this sound is anything else. On the other side of the coin are those people who have told me that they have spent a great deal of time in the woods and maintain that it is impossible to be a coyote.
My original interest in the sounds in the woods and along the creek behind my home started last spring. On the 23rd of May, 2005 I went out into my backyard to check on my dog, Belle. She had been barking for some time and would just not settle down. So I grabbed my 3rd gen night vision and proceeded to take her toward the creek and show her where I had seen deer bedding down. As I reached the edge of the yard I heard what sounded like a very large roar coming from the creek bottom. The call was very deep and full. The sound lasted for about 15 seconds and then all was quiet. It appeared to be coming from something with a huge chest. The call had a somewhat human quality to it. I went into the house to ask my wife to come and listen. Nothing else was heard. The dog settled down and did not bark again that evening.
Since that time I have been placing my audio recorder down near the creek or on the hill above it. Although this is Central Illinois we have a large deer population. Other wildlife seen along this creek include several sightings of mountain lion and bobcat. We also have a sizable population of coyotes. About 3 miles to the east of me is a state park with a large lake and lots of marshy areas. And about 10 miles north of our home the creek flows into the South Fork of the Sangamon River.
Will this riddle of the Illinois Howl ever be solved. Yes, of course!
Northern Virginia was my second stop squatchin’ in all 48 contiguous states in 2008. I was invited to go squatchin’ with DB Donlon. We were joined by Billy Willard and Tom of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia.
On the 6th of January, 2008 we were in a wooded area about 45 miles from Washington, D.C. We spent about 5 hours hiking, setting up recording gear and listening for night sounds. This particular area has a history of several sightings and many vocalizations.
Although nothing unusual was heard this particular night it was still an enjoyable experience. The guys were a little disappointed that the evening was so quiet, but with the rainfall and additional researchers at the site things just didn’t pan out. If every time we went into the woods evidence was gathered it wouldn’t still be a mystery.
Thanks for allowing me to tag along DB, Billy and Tom!
To listen to an audio recording of this segment click here.
Virginia 48 in ’48
Are you interested in being part of this project?
North-Eastern Ohio was my first stop squatchin’ in all 48 contiguous states in 2008. I was invited to go squatchin’ with Mark Maisel, BFRO_Ohio investigator.
On the 5th of January, 2008 we checked out Cuyahoga Valley National Park near Cleveland, Ohio. Cuyahoga is a 33,000 acre park well known for a myriad of deer, many coyotes and numerous bigfoot sightings, the latest reported to the BFRO being on Christmas Eve of 2007. The temperature was in the mid 20s and the park was gorgeous with its steep ravines, rocky cliffs and snow cover. Thanks Mark!
To listen to an audio recording of this segment click here.
Ohio 48 in ’48
A podcast interview will be added to this Ohio segment in the near future.
Are you interested in being part of this project?
With the New Year of 2008 upon us I have been evaluating some projects and goals. My number one priority is nature photography and recording and I hope to do some long term recording both in my home area and other places in the country.
My other top goal is to do squatchin’ in all 48 contiguous states in 2008. So I hope to post often of new areas that I am able to explore with pictures of scenery and researcher friends.
I leave home tomorrow –
It has been a year since I first posted SquatchMarks. There are many new researchers entering the ranks of bigfoot/sasquatch research every day so I am reposting this in hopes that SquatchMarks. can be of some help. I am constantly updating, making corrections and hopefully improving the general layout. I wish to thank all the wonderful people who continue to email me additions and corrections.
SquatchMarks attempts to include links to all websites, blogs, chatrooms, forums, internet radio, podcasts, Myspace and YouTube.
If you find a broken link, or know of a new website that you would like included please email me at stancourtney@hotmail.com or leave a comment at the end of this post.
From last years entry –
I have been on the internet for over 12 years now. During that time I have always struggled with a decent start page or set of bookmarks.
It is a very difficult undertaking to keep a current set of bookmarks. Every month there are many new websites that come on line as well as those that become broken links. I want to include all the websites, forums, podcasts, blogs and related sites.
This is my attempt to have a bigfoot & cryotozoology bookmark / start page.
http://www.stancourtney.com/squatchmarks.html
It is called squatchmarks (combination of sasquatch and bookmarks). If you want to use it either bookmark it into your bookmark section, set it as your home page or save it on your computer and simple click on it when desired.
I am constantly deleting outdated links and adding new ones but it is a never ending job. I am always open to suggestions, if you find a page that you think needs to be added or a broken link just send me a note at stancourtney@hotmail.com or leave a comment at the end of this post.
A Sand County Almanac With Essays on Conservation from Round River by Aldo Leopold was first published posthumously in 1949 with certain additions in later additions. It has become a classic read for those interested in conservation and the environment. I first read this small book over forty years ago. If you have not read it I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.
Within the book there is one small essay entitled The Deer Swath. I found it summed up my thoughts about those of us who spend time in the woods observing nature and how we perceive what we see and hear. We all have different areas in which we are better than others. My chief interest is sounds, whether bird or mammals while my wife is busy concentrating on looking for tracks in the dust. She is always saying “What
bird, I didn’t hear anything” while I could have a herd of elephants walk through the area and not notice the footprints. I have a friend in New Mexico who excels at looking for elk and deer sign and another friend here in Illinois who is quite adept at looking at ‘sign” as described by the author.
We can not all be good at everything so my advice is for you to have several friends with you as you do your research and concentrate on those areas that are of particular interest to you and allow your friends to concentrate on their areas of interest. The correct dog can be a great asset in the woods. With keen senses my Karelian Bear Dog many times has alerted me to the fact that we were not alone in our section of forest.
The Deer Swath an excerpt from A Sand County Almanac – published June 1989
When the deer hunter sits down he sits where he can see ahead, and with his back to something. The duck hunter sits where he can see overhead, and he behind something. The non-hunter sits where he is comfortable. None of these watches the dog. The bird hunter watches only the dog, and always knows where the dog is, whether or not visible at the moment. The dog’s nose is the bird hunter’s eye. Many hunters who carry a shotgun in season have never learned to watch the dog, or to interpret his reactions to scent.
There are good outdoors men who do not conform to these categories. There is the ornithologist who hunts by ear, and uses the eye only to follow up on what his ear has detected. There is the botanist who hunts by eye, but at much closer range; he is a marvel at finding plants, but seldom sees birds or mammals. There is the forester who sees only trees, and the insects and fungi that prey upon trees; he is oblivious to all else. And finally there is the sportsman who sees only game, and regards all else as of little interest or value.
There is one illusive mode of hunting which I cannot associate exclusively with any of these groups: the search for scats, tracks, feathers, dens, roostings, rubbings, dustings, diggings, feedings, fightings, or preyings collectively known to woodsmen as ‘reading sign.’ This skill is rare, and too often seems to be inverse to book learning.
Many bigfoot researchers are leery of giving interviews to the press. The main emphasis should be about the undocumented upright walking North American primate not about the researchers.
Search For Bigfoot – A Documentary
My eldest son is a pastor of a church in Columbia, Missouri. He contacted my wife early in February about allowing a couple of University of Missouri students to spend the night. They were traveling to Bowling Green, Ohio for a church conference and we were conveniently located halfway between Ohio and Missouri. As an aside, he also mentioned that Peggy was interested in interviewing me about my bigfoot research for a class project. I reluctantly agreed, not thinking much about it.
I was a little surprised when they arrived and she set up a video-camera. She did an impromptu interview as I showed her some of my footcasts and recording equipment. I took them out sound-blasting later in the evening and did hear and record some distant howls.
Two months later my son again contacted me and asked if I would allow her to tag along in my research area to see what I do when I am looking for bigfoot evidence. I again agreed and met Peggy, a school friend of Peggy’s, and my son and his wife at the park.
We spent about an hour and a half walking through some areas where I have found footprints and recorded several vocalizations. I did ask if I could have a copy of the DVD when she finished. She said of course.
Saturday I received my copy of the DVD. I was a little taken aback and disappointed that the focus of the short documentary was on the sincerity and saneness of me as a researcher and not on the true subject which is bigfoot / sasquatch.
One question that continues to plague bigfoot researchers is “What is this animal, is it a man (albeit different or primitive) or is it just an ape?”
Man has always had to cope with uncertain feelings when it comes to apes and monkeys. We can not gaze into the eyes of a chimp at the zoo and not have some thoughts about our similarities.
Two thousand years ago when Europeans were first exposed to seeing monkeys, it was easy to say “Well we are not closely related, they have tails, walk on all fours, are covered with hair and have no language.” When stories of chimps and gorillas started coming out of Africa, disbelief was common. Here was a group of animals that had no tail, walked closer to upright and looked more human-like. The first “body”
presented to science surely was a momentous event.
So how does this all relate to bigfoot studies? We are confronted with an animal that –
1. Is upright walking (Patterson-Gimlin, Memorial Day, and Freeman films).
2. Has footprints that are somewhat similar to mans as shown by many photographs and footprint casts.
3. Is very vocal, whether these sounds are related to true language or is simply mimicry is open to debate.
4. Has a highly social family structure as reported by eye witness accounts.
5. Facial features look more human-like than apelike. I have interviewed over two hundred witnesses that have had a bigfoot encounter. Of those individuals who have seen the face, almost all of them emphasized its human-like characteristics.
So where does this leave us with the question as to whether bigfoot is man or beast? This debate has been
going on for decades and will only intensify as new films, audio recordings and someday a body is produced.
Perhaps the question should be “What is Man?”
Mankind cannot be defined simply by being intelligent, using tools and language or being bi-pedal.
The final answer can only come from the Bible. We read in Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.”
Only man is aware of God and only man is capable of fellowshipping with Him through a right personal relationship through Christ. .
Ephesians 4:24
“and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”
So friends, it is your decision what you will believe, for myself I believe what separates man from all the animals, whether it be monkey, ape or bigfoot is that only man was created in the image of God and only man is capable of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, as our Lord and Savior.
References:
Special thank you to:
Pastor Dale B. Huelsman
Bethany Lutheran Church
Wellington, Ohio
A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism with
An American Translation Text – A Handbook of Christan Doctrine.
Christian News – New Haven, Missouri 63068
A Summary of Christan Doctrine by Edward W.A. Koehler
Concordia Publishing House, St.Louis
How is Man Created in God’s Image?
Come Reason Ministries
BibleGateway.com
http://www.biblegateway.com/
One concept that I see being repeated over and over again is that if there is a large bi-pedal ape in North America it must live in only the most remote, secluded wilderness areas. Commonly areas pointed to as likely habitat are the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, Northern California or if “back
East”, only inaccessible mountainous terrain.
But do witness reports really bear out this assumption?
Let’s take a look at several reports that have been posted by the BFRO, The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization.
Omaha, Nebraska
Various sightings near the Missouri River in Omaha, Nebraska.
I interviewed this witness. Although the report only goes into recent activity she told me that her family has had several sightings and heard vocalizations going back as far as the early 1960’s. What is significant is that this area is bounded on all four sides by major thoroughfares: I-480 on the west and north, I-29 on the east, I-80 on the south. It is also within 1 1/2 miles of the central district of Omaha, Nebraska.
Of special note is that Marlin Perkins who hosted Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom made a trip to the Himalayas with Sir Edmund Hillary in 1960 to check out reports of the Yeti. While on that trip they examined a supposed Yeti scalp that turned out to be a hoax. Perhaps they should have saved
their money, stayed home and talked to local witnesses in Omaha.
Topeka, Kansas
Hiker finds footprint near Topeka, Kansas.
What is significant about this report is the excellent picture that he was able to obtain of a possible juvenile bigfoot print. The exact location although not stated is within a couple miles of downtown Topeka and along the Kansas River.
St.Louis County, Missouri
Bow hunter observes animal in Creve Coeur bottoms.
This report comes from an area that is 15 miles from downtown, St.Louis, Missouri and along the Missouri River. It also is only a couple of miles from very populated suburbs in west St.Louis County. This area is bounded on the west and south by I-40, on the north by I-70 and east by I-270.
Madison County, Illinois (unpublished)
This rural location in Madison County, Illinois has been the site of ongoing bigfoot sightings. It is near a small creek and approximately 15 miles from the Mississippi River. I did an on-site investigation and saw several sets of footprints.
Central Illinois. (unpublished)
Another rural location in Central Illinois. This site is also located on a small wooded creek that flows through corn and soybean fields. It is located 13 miles from the Sangamon River. Numerous whistles, woodknocks and howls have been recorded at this site.
Lee County, Illinois
Hikers find footprint along Franklin Creek.
This footprint was found along a small wooded creek in an agricultural area of Northern Illinois. It is located 5 miles from the Rock River.
Food – Water – Cover
The important factors for possible bigfoot habitat seem to be wooded streams or river systems and an adequate food supply, particularly a large deer population. Reports continue to come in whether they are close to major urban centers or agricultural areas.
It has been stated that the Pacific Northwest has a resident population of bigfoot on every watershed. A growing number of researchers are gradually coming to realize that perhaps it is the same situation east of the Rockies.