Using EXIF Reader

While doing research, in particular, photo analysis, the importance of using an EXIF viewer on the photos is very critical, in that it reveals a lot of information that the researcher can use in that analysis.  The following slides are from the MABRC Training Facility and is used to train MABRC Researchers in this very important aspect of research.  ALWAYS!! use an EXIF viewer to look at the details on a photo, don't never take anything at face value, no matter who it is that provides you with a photo.

Download EXIF Reader here

Play Me Something Cool!

Written by Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, MABRC Missouri State Director

You know I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard this sentiment.  When it comes to bigfoot the public and wanna believers seem to only want the great videos, pictures and audio.  They want the Oohhs and aahhs so they can say they now know bigfoot is real.  Details don’t matter as long as it is cool!   So here goes a couple of questions, does this help research or get us closer to proving the existence of an undocumented species?   Is it only the cool stuff that matters?

With humans being so used to be entertained by all the available media out there it is hard to suffice the appetite for being entertained.  Sadly, real research seldom sees the cool stuff when they go out.  There are the hours in the woods.  There are the hours of review.  There are hours of planning.  There are the hours of try to put patterns together to make the time in the woods more productive.  On and on it goes.  Another sad fact is that what is cool to researchers ain’t always what is cool to the public.  You bet we love to hear and record the screams etc., see the possible structures or manipulations, or get lucky enough to catch something on video or thermal.  

Yes, we also appreciate the pat on the back when we do catch something from the public and other researchers.  Unfortunately for a lot of folks the Oohhs and Aahhs become addictive.  I think that is why there is such a hoaxing problem that we see every day on Facebook and Youtube.   It would seem like once you put something out there that is cool and possibly bigfoot related the public’s appetite just gets bigger.  At times it seems that they get demanding and what more from you.  Any researcher worth their salt know that we spend a whole lot more time without the so-called cool stuff happening.  We still do the planning, head to the woods, review what we have recorded, try and figure out things.  But we don’t get the Oohhs and Aahhs from that.  I’ve seen so many get into the trap of letting the notoriety get in the way and try and force things to happen.  If that fails, try and hype up the stuff that does happen just because they feel an obligation to fulfill the public’s appetite for so something cool.  I’ve seen scary bigfoot pictures added to audio, scary background music during talks about experiences, all in hopes of feeding the public’s hunger.  Sorry folks, that doesn’t do much but muddy the waters and takes away from the research.  All those scary pictures and music won’t help find the evidence needed to prove the existence of bigfoot.  

Now don’t get me wrong, I realize that folks are interested in bigfoot.  When putting presentation on for conferences and radio shows we need to share the cool stuff we get as that is what folks want when attending them.  Just don’t let the cool stuff be all that you are after.  The data is in the details.  The little stuff.  I can’t even begin to state the importance of how sharing the little stuff around campfires has made new ideas and filled in the blank to help others in researching their areas.  

So, one final thought.  As a researcher is your priority to the insatiable hunger of the public or to adding to the possible evidence to further push the existence for an undocumented species, we call bigfoot. 

Is a Knock Just a Knock?

An article written by Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, MABRC Missouri State Director

This is one of those things that at face value seems to be accepted as a typical Bigfoot activity by most field researchers.  Why?  Where did it come from?  The history of wood knock reports go back generations for Bigfoot researchers.  There has been written accounts in newspaper, even some reports that have been collected.  Some of those can be see in the MABRC forums. 

So, if this is an activity of bigfoot, why is it done?  Hunting?  During the day that would make sense.  I could see knocking on a tree to scare a small critter to a smaller tree in hopes of shaking it out of the smaller tree.  But what about at night?  I can’t see that being viable.  Could we be missing something?  We know other primates do this type of thing, why is at this time not been answered, but they do.  We still don’t know if the knock that we hear is wood on wood, rock on wood, or another mechanism all together.  Is it possible that it is a hand clap?  Maybe chest slap?  The reality is that we just don’t know.  One thing is clear.  We hear knocks in areas of bigfoot sightings areas, associated with tracks and possible manipulations to nature so we can’t discount it.  

The sad fact is I had pretty much quit clipping knocks out during audio review because a knock is just a knock, right?  I would log it in the review file, but it wasn’t a cool sound so why bother?

In this article I would like to present what I have found while working with audio that may shed some interesting insight to the topic.  I’ve regularly recorded what we call knocks in many of the areas that member of the MABRC has been researching for years as well as my primary research area.  This article is by no means proof of anything, just what I have been able to come up with using audio analysis in the same way I do when identifying known and unknown vocalizations that have been recorded.  Every sound whether natural, known, or unknown have a signature that can be seen on a spectrogram.  They all have certain profiles, tones, how they start and end that can help identify what the sound is.  Nature allows variables in the sounds as no critter is the same.  However, the structure or signature will still follow patterns of the known sounds.

One of the more interesting things about knocks is that they have different tones to the knock.  You may say “duh” but let me explain what I mean.  In doing the Silent Hills Project it was realized that the sound of the knock comes from the object that we do the knock with not the sound of the tree.  The axe handle we used didn’t change tones when we hit on three different trees.  The only change was the volume, NOT the tone of the knock.  Some were softer, some were louder depending on the softness of the bark or the strength behind the knock.  However, if the handle was held closer to the middle of the axe handle the tone would change.  With that being said, the number of knocks that are reported verses the number of sightings report that are only a small handful that ever say things like carrying a stick or club.  Now if a stick was used to make the sound, you would expect a lot more reports than what is there.  Even the sightings reports that talk “as it disappeared into the woods we heard a knock” sort of thing none of those talk about a club being carried during the sighting.  That brought me to the thought that they could maybe pick up a stick to hit with.  It didn’t take long to realize the problem with that.  It is a lot more difficult to walk through the woods, pick up a stick of any size to use as a knocking stick.  The majority of what is on the ground and rotted to make it useless for more than a pale knock as it breaks.  Nature just claims things back too fast.

For several years I have suspected that for the most part knocks were a way of locating other when they were foraging through an area.  The reason for that was based on drop box recordings where you could hear faint knocks that got louder then soft again.  It was like something came up and passed the recorder and continued until it got too distant to record.  These knocks were not evenly spaced or even the same volume, but it always came together.  Like one knock and a reply a few seconds later almost as one was answering the first one.   It wasn’t until the Silent Hills Project that it hit me that the tones of the knocks would be the same if it was one knocker was doing the knocking.  When I did a spectrogram analysis of the knocks, I was taken aback when it should that there were two different tones to the knock.  Those two tones of the individual knockers didn’t change.  Whether close or far, the tones didn’t vary.  It was easy to see the difference in the frequency (hertz) each knock.  Using that information, we started what we called knock - knock games to try and lure them in.  We have had some interesting results.  Other researchers have over the years had results also by returning knocks and getting responses back.  Here are some links to what we recorded.    

Now if you paid attention to the dates on the three clips you will notice that there were two close together and one a lot later.  The third was recorded in a new listening post we just started to use and a seldom in that area.  If you watch how they evolved, you’ll notice that the knock – knock game changed after the first one.  It was almost like they learned our knock’s tone.  They seemed to be able to challenge us to see if it was one of them or us.  I understand that it is to a lot for folks a big pill to swallow.  I know it was and is for me also.   When I brought it up to some of the MABRC members a couple years ago needless to say I got mixed opinions.  One piece of advice they all basically had was collect the data and follow the evidence.  

Because of the lack of sightings where them carrying clubs or stick, it made me highly suspicious that it was actually wood on wood sounds we were hearing.  Even a rock on wood would not be sensible as there is NO reports of any carrying rocks from what I have read.  I also can not find reports of other primates that carry rock with them as they travel from place to place.  Yes, chimps have been known to pick up rocks and strike a tree for an undetermined reason but the drops it as it leaves.  It is also a rare situation for other primates but knocking sounds seems to be fairly prevalent with Bigfoot.  

All primates have an ability to make a knock like type sound with their bodies.  Chest slap, and clapping are the two.  To my knowledge only the gorilla uses its chest.  But all do clap their hands.  Could that be what is happening that we think is knocking?  With the quick response to our knocks like is recorded it would seem highly unlikely that they could be that quick if they had to swing a stick.  Then you add the rapid one that we caught, it is not possible for us to knock nearly that fast using our ax handle.  Then add the two tones ones and that is impossible using a stick or handle.  

During the Thumperville Expedition with the Western MABRC Team last fall I had them help me collect more data by trying hand claps and knocks from different trees and distances.  We did a simplified version of the of the Silent Hill Project so the folks in attendance could experience the results of the experiment. Here is the baseline knocks for each person there.  

With all the participants using the same ax handle as was used in the Silent Hills Project you can hear they are all a little different.  Hand placement, hand grip used, and even the size of the person using it made a difference.  

In the first field round, we had adults and a young teen doing the knocks.  With the recorded audio it was easy to hear which person was doing the knocking even though they could not be seen.  Each had distinct difference in the tones of the knocking stick and could easily be identified with who it was.  They all used the same knocking stick on the same trees as they went further and further from the recorder.  Even with the volume decrease as the space widened, the signatures on the spectrogram stayed mostly consistent with each person. Here’s the results of the knocking as they moved away from the recorder.  During this portion of the experiment I also had them do a long vocal as a way of showing how the howl/whoop compared to a knock as far as how the different sounds travel.   

Again, notice the different tones each person knocking produces using the same knocking stick.  Even without seeing who was doing the knocking if it was compared to the baseline knocks you could pretty much figure out who it was that was doing the knocking.

We did not do a hand clap during the experiment but with the significant difference with the initial baseline of the experiment it was truly remarkable the sounds of the individual claps among the whole group.  Here are the results of the clapping.  

It is easy to hear the difference between each participant’s clap.  Big hands, small hands, soft and rough all had a different tone.  Now I know that our clapping sounds don’t travel as far as the ax handle.  But with the individual clapper’s tones being so different and distinct, it would make one question if a stronger species with apparent bigger and stronger hands could it travel further if not the same as us swinging an axe handle?  If in fact they do clap to make the sound we call a knock, could their clap be as distinct as ours?  
  

We recently had a night out in our primary research area where we recorded knocks that happened on and off for 3 hours.  No, they were not consistent but in total there were over 50 knocks on the camp recorder alone.   This has been recorded several times in this location and I suspect it is used as location during foraging behavior.  However, there hasn’t been this may in such a short period of time before.  Maybe they were out of sight from each other but not out of sound range?  With some knocks having the same tones that were recorded before my arrival back at camp and may have been done to alert others of people presence.  This was a recording from the camp recorder using the Zoom H2n which have less distortion than my other recorders.  However, you will also hear some camp noise being fire snaps or other man-made audio.  This was a quick cleanup to eliminate as much audio between knocks a possible.  

With the knocks being close to one after another it is easy to hear the different tones of the different knock.  While listening and observing the signatures on the spectrogram it would appear like there is 3 possibly 4 different tones of the ones the recorder picked up.  I highly suspect as with what the Thumperville Experiment shows, that this is more than one critter producing the knock. 

So, what does this all mean?  I’m not sure, but it does seem to point to that each Bigfoot may have a unique tone to their knocks however they are making them.  Could we use this as a way of counting how many individuals are in the area at a given time?  Could we use their distinct tones as a way of identifying certain individuals?  Maybe even track them year to year?  All these questions need to be answered by the bigfoot community if we want to solve the mystery.  Hopefully others will also look at this and see if they can collaborate what I have found.  The answer is in the woods.  Let’s see if we can start putting the puzzle together using a more thorough analysis of the possible evidence. 

Funding and Farces

By Jim "Biggjimm" Whitehead, Senior Field Researcher, 

MABRC Western Oklahoma State Director, 

MABRC Mid-South Regional Assistant Director

What is the difference between seeking funds for research and scamming someone out of their hard earned money? Unfortunately, as far as cryptozoological research goes, its a very tight and non distinct line that is as blurry as hell. There are several reasons why this is true, and any researcher worth their salt should be aware of them. 

To start with, one needs to be aware of what real research is. Real research is not simply going out in the woods and sitting around listening for things that go bump in the night. Real research involves an honest attempt to gather data and interpret it, and then add it to the pool of knowledge. This means equipment. Any good researcher will tell you that there area certain tools you will need to gather said data. And these tools are not cheap. Scientists rely on research grants to obtain the equipment that they need. Unfortunately, this path is not available to most cryptozoological researchers. Most researchers are your average working class folk, and simply put cannot afford to buy the equipment that they need to advance their goals. This means that they have to seek the cash to buy equipment on their own.

Most researchers will actively find ways to obtain the needed money. This can include getting loans, saving, buying used equipment, or selling items at conferences and speaking events. There is no issue with that. But a researcher should NEVER ask for donations or set up online accounts designed for collecting money. In the eyes of the Bigfoot community, it immediately raises concerns that the individual is simply trying to get peoples' money and not do any kind of meaningful data collection. Often the researcher's reputation is tarnished if they try to gather donations, and anything they produce is widely thought of as questionable at best, or hoaxed at worst.

The issue again lies in the fact that cryptozoological research is widely regarded as a half witted psuedo-science by the media. In the public's eyes all researchers are scammers, idiots, crazy, or at the very least just plain weird. It appears to most people from the outside looking in that any attempt to ask for donations by a Bigfooter is a scam to get their money. With this kind of scrutiny from both inside and outside the Bigfoot community, a researcher should avoid the temptation to try to take donations at all costs.

Peers - The Scientific Community and Bigfoot Researchers - by Marie Simone Van Speybroeck

- by Marie Simone Van Speybroeck

November 10

Recently I had occasion to talk with some of my peers about the work amateur researchers conduct in the field of cryptozoological study. After speaking with several experts in the field of zoology. I noted that the same responses were prevailing among all of them.

There is a notable apprehension in the scientific community to accept data provided by amateur researchers in the field of cryptozoological study. Understanding that the cryptozoological and zoological study should follow the same rigorous guidelines is one of the key reasons for the disdain of science for the topic. 

So let’s see if I can try to explain how an amateur researcher can gain the respect of the professionals.

To fully understand the in-cognizance of the sciences in regards to cryptozoology one must understand the meaning of the word, (Cryptozoology). 

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific approach to the discovery unknown or legendary creatures many of whom are considered to be of folklore. It is a study in the undiscovered and is often conducted with out the disciplines and skills of a zoological team. The title of cryptozoologist is more often then not, a self bestowed credential. Though it is accepted by the public as legitimate the word describes a multitude of different disciplines. 

To understand this one must look at the field of zoology. Zoology is the study of animals. It is a multi disciplined field. A zoological team is comprised of several individuals whom are all expert in different disciplines. A typical team consists of a wildlife biologist, wildlife behaviorist, a veterinarian and a veterinary pathologist and a botanist as primary members, secondary or support persons would be a local guide and a animal tracker. For one individual to master each of these disciplines it would take a lifetime of vigorous study resulting in several degrees for a single individual. Not an impossible thing but a highly unlikely situation. 

So the first mistake made by many laymen researchers is to introduce themselves as cryptozoologists a word that describes multiple disciplines of which most laymen researchers simply do not possess. 

Credibility is dictated by the qualifications and credentials of the individual. So simply introducing oneself as a amateur researcher is far more credible then using the self aggrandized title of cryptozoologist. 

Credibility also demands solid repeatable performance witnessed by more then one individual and proven scientific technical methodology be used in all aspects of your research.

Literally 1000s of items of evidence are destroyed by contamination or improper retrieval, storage handling of evidence. 

Photographic evidence that is unclear such as blobsquatches. Should not even be submitted to the body of evidence. Researchers whom post photographic evidence and say “ can you see it?” expecting the viewer to find some fuzzy dark mass in a picture and convince them selves that it is indeed a picture of the creature in retrospect. Diminishes the researchers credibility. 

Researchers should never work alone. Teams of two are a minimum, teams of 4 or 6 are by far more credible. Every team should have one skeptic as a member of the team. This prevents enthusiastic researchers from committing (Boboizums) (named after Bobo, James Fay) a comedic term assigned to researchers whom are guilty of seeing and hearing a cryptid at every snap of a twig. Or fallen tree. So before you say that’s a squatch. Make sure it really is a Sasquatch. 

These things will all improve the credibility of the researchers. 


If you would like more help in research techniques please comment and I will do my best to help.

Does Bigfoot Have a Language?

By Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, Senior MABRC Field Researcher, Missouri State Director.

After I did the research paper and compared purported Bigfoot vocals with other primate I have been questioned on why I didn't put in there that they "talk" as humans do.  Well honestly, I didn't because I don't know.  Yes I suspect that they may have a rudimentary type of language based on some of the audio that I have collected over the years.   However that is also an interpretation of mine.  I am not a linguist and have no training on making any assumptions other than my personal feeling on the matter.  There was some very interesting conversation from folks that I would like to address here.

One fella said that they had to have a language to trade with the natives.  I know that there are those that claim it happened and I guess I really don't doubt that it could happen but what is considered trading?  There have been a lot of reports of raided coolers in campground, freezers on porches, even taking feed out of deer feeders and cattle feeders at night.  Did they leave something behind?  Most never took a look to say one way or the other.  Was the trade items talked about something that they had with them such as a branch, or rocks?  That was left behind?  Not really as a trade but a way of freeing up their hands to take something else?  I suspect that was more of the way it went and the thought of stealing is taking without exchange so it could be seen as a trade.  What we think of a trade today is something exchanged to both parties benefit and satisfaction.  So if that was what was considered as a trade, there was no need for talking.

I have had several folks that heard mumbling in the woods bring that up.  With questions like: If it wasn't talking what was it?  I have heard and recorded that type of stuff myself and have asked the same question time and time again.  There are a lot of reports of them mimicking anything from other critters in the woods to calling people’s names.  The first time I heard what I suspect was a mimic it was one single word.  While setting up a parabolic early one morning in the dark I heard what I thought was a person say "Hey".  This was 5 a.m. on a cool November day.  I was there until 10 and never saw or heard another person, and with only one way in, there were no other trucks.  That was what made me consider the possibility of Bigfoot mimicking.  Here's the thing that is interesting to me.  No other primate can imitate human speech.  Yes there are some birds that can but no other mammals or primates that I have found.  So it could be said that IF it was a Bigfoot that did it apparently it have the physical traits needed to produce that ability.

Then a few years back I was fortunate enough to record something mimicking what I was saying at camp as I discussed the possibility of them being able to mimic.  Here is what was recorded.  Headphones are best for listening to this as it is faint.    



This for me pretty solidified that there is something in the woods that can mimic us.  I have also caught other stuff that could easily be either a mimic or possible language.  But the big question is which is it?



Another thing I have heard a lot is that it sounds like an Asian talking, or people think they hear Native American word from one tribe or another, or even English.  I do know from doing this audio stuff now for a few years that our ears can play tricks on us as much as our eyes can.  It is only natural for us to try and make sense of what we are hearing and identify it with what we can understand.  The most famous one that is talked about is the Sierra Sounds recorded by Ron Moorhead back in the 70s.  I do think it is authentic, however I question if that was the Bigfoot trying to mimic what they were hearing and that was the best they could do without practice.  Even we humans with the physical traits needed to make speech, we can actually talk without practice and a need to do it.  We see kids all the time that really don't talk until about 3-4 years old, usually because siblings do it for them or they use gestures like pointing to get what they want.

The type of language for us is nothing more than interpretation on our part, usually from sources like TV.  We can all remember trying to sound like the Chinese or Asian from the TV shows we watched when we were young.  We'd do our best samurai talk and it was sort of like it in inflection and structure so to us it sounded good but in actuality it was nothing more than gibberish.  It would make no sense to a person that actually spoke the language.  I remember back when I was a little fella watching the old westerns and just KNEW that all Indians said "How" for hello.   And the sounds they made during dances etc.  Wow what we learn from TV.  As I got to know people from the local tribes I found out it was not only way off but was even insulting.  Point being, without an actual reference our minds have a real ability to KNOW things that may not be true.

Back to the Sierra Sounds, it may have been the first time those Bigfoot had heard people and that was as close as they could get to what they were hearing.  Another eye opener for me was a documentary that is on Netflix.  It is called "First Contact: The Lost Tribes of the Amazon".  It is a show on how some of the tribes in the Amazon are coming out to modern people and the problems they face.  The local people there are distant relations with them and were separated between 100-150 years ago.  The languages had evolved on both sides to the point that they could no longer understand each other. Because of this, there are tons of misunderstandings between them.  If anyone is interested I would highly suggest watching it because there is so much there to be learned.  On a side note, there was one tribe that when in the jungle, had certain whistles that were used.  However the reasons have yet to be understood.

So for me when I hear that they said this word or that word in a native language I highly question it.  Even more so when I hear people say they are saying this or that in English and they play the clip it is a HUGE stretch most times to actually hear what they say they hear. It's kind of like those ghost hunter folks on TV that have some sound recorded and they say it says this (or print it on the screen) and then you hear it.  That is how our minds work.  If we are told what it says, we can usually hear it.  But if we aren't told what it says we can't.  The one thing that is the hardest thing for me in audio review is to actually hear what the sound or vocal is before my mind identifies it.  We are instinctually programmed to quickly identify sound as a survival tactic and respond accordingly that makes it easy to misidentify things.  That is also why we have as many misunderstandings as we do with other people.  We think we heard them say this when actually they said something else.  It happens all the time.  Take my name, Randy.  If I am in a busy place like a restaurant and someone says "Candy" my mind only heard the last part of the word and I think they are talking about me or to me.  So when you think you hear something like a word, we really need to make sure our minds aren't filling in the blanks.

Now that I have I have talked about how what we are hearing may be misinterpretations, I like to bring up a couple of points that I think are something to think about.  Again I think it is pretty much a given that Bigfoot does have the ability to mimic other critters and maybe even people.  A lot of people are at the thought that all we are hearing is the sounds it makes to communicate with others.  All animals do it.  Certain sounds communicate certain things.  Science has done a lot of study on this over the years and has come up with a lot of good stuff.  And yes, critters will use different vocals for different things like contentment, warnings, etc.  Some studies have even proven that they can have different vocals for the different threats.  One thing I have found in my research is that those vocals sound pretty much the same and without a spectrogram and seeing what is around in context with the vocal it would be really difficult to notice the difference.  For a lack of a better way of putting it, they all sound pretty much the same.

Here lays one thing we need to look at.  Primates are able to make different sound for different things like I talked about in my comparing purported Bigfoot vocals with known primates.  Do to the mouth/lip structure that is in primates we can make sounds that other critters can't.  Listening to the YouTube clips above there are sounds there that need a primate mouth/lips structure to make.  Language as we know it needs a Hyoid bone.  And to the best of our knowledge only humans or extinct hominids have them.  It has been proven that Gorillas, Chimpanzees and others have the intelligence to communicate with sign language using it in proper structure and context for the situation that they are in.  So it is safe to say, the thought patterns of these primate are there for language.  Now there has been recordings of hearing what is most likely a mimic during some of the MABRC Expeditions.  One in particular is the recording of something saying "Bobbie" several times after everyone had turned in.  Look at the structure of the lips/mouth that would be required to say that.  No known critter in nature has the lip/mouth structure to make those sounds except primates.

Another time in the same area "Izzy" was heard.  Take the "Z" sound.  What critter can make that?    A lot of the consonance sounds seem to be only done with the lip/mouth structures of primates.
Now I have no idea as of yet what sounds can or cannot be made without the Hyoid bone as my research hasn't found those answers yet, but I suspect that the ability they appear to have to mimic humans talking may show that it could be there.  In all reality until we get some DNA evidence we won't know for sure.  Personally I wouldn't be surprised if they did have a language, however, I think it would be rudimentary at best.  Even our human ancestors having a Hyoid bone I suspect didn't use as much language as we do today.  With them living in close proximity with each other as they did, it wasn't really needed.  It wasn't until our ancestors started to expand from smaller groups that talking became more and more important.  That is when language as we have come to know it evolved.

Even today people close to each other communicate more by gestures than we even notice.  Reading body language is instinctually understood even though we can talk.

I know from spending a lot of time with the MABRC folks around the campfire discussing things that there seems to be an even split on this topic.  Some who have heard and recorded what sounds like mumbling conversation feel they do have a language of sorts.  And the others feel it is just instinctual animal communications.  The answer is in the woods.  And hopefully with collecting and comparing more data, we can get a clearer picture of what is actually happening.

Burden of proof

Definition:

Burden of Proof -
    - the obligation to prove one's assertion.

Today's blog is about the burden of proof in the Bigfoot Community.  I see it all the time, someone posts what they claim is a photo of Bigfoot, someone questions them about how do you know it's a Bigfoot, did you take comparison photos?  The person that is making the claim about the photo suddenly gets defensive and screams that they know what it is and everyone that don't believe them can take a flying hike off the cliff.

Let's take a look at the facts here.

The person posted a photo on Facebook to the public at large, making claims that it's a Bigfoot.  This is the assertion of the person who posted it, and accordingly, the burden of proof is their's to show it is a Bigfoot, not the person asking for comparison photos.

I see that a lot too, the person who truly has the burden of proof upon them, tries to turn the tables on those asking for more evidence, claiming that they either have to supply the burden of proof, or that they are just mean individuals who are jealous of the person's success in the field.

This usually ends up causing another issue that creates what is called sheeple.

Definition

Sheeple

People compared to sheep in being docile, foolish, or easily led.

This is caused by Peer Pressure

In which the person that has posted the so-called evidence has slowly created themselves a following, and once someone tries to question anything related to that evidence, the following/cult members begin piling on, attacking those who ask questions.  Before long, those who tried to maintain independent thought about the evidence and asking questions, are beaten down by these attacks, and eventually fall into the group think mentality.  The free thinker now becomes a sheeple.

So by now, you are asking, Darkwing, what is the point of this blog post.  When I started it, I was going to just talk about the burden of proof is always on the submitter, never on the reviewer.  But the other day I seen where someone asked legitimate questions about evidence submitted online, and when the followers of the submitter seen this, they viciously attacked the person asking the questions, after a day of being attacked, the person finally gave in and fell in line with the rest of the sheeple, refusing to ask any more questions.

I have to say, that is one of the things these days that makes me like going over to the Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research over on Facebook, led by Steven

Streufert, this group resembles more of the wolves instead of sheeple. What I mean by

that, is they analyze everything with a critical eye, and although this has led them into

some rather nasty fights with other Bigfoot groups on Facebook. They don't allow

themselves to be pulled into the sheeple flock. So you should check out the group,

but make sure to have a thick skin, they don't tolerate sheeples in the group.

Hoaxing, the worst side of the Bigfoot Community.

Recently it was brought to the attention of Bigfoot Hoaxers Exposed 2.0 on Facebook, of a group of individuals in Western Oklahoma who have been perpetrating hoaxes and posting it in Bigfoot groups.

This group thought that no one would call them out on it until they posted an obvious hoaxed photo, that not only was exposed as a log laying on the ground, but several other researchers who knew where the exact location is, come forward to confirm it was a log on the ground.

Here is the photo in question followed up by the two zooms the person that submitted them posted with it.

(Photos being used it is placed here under Title 17.

Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.)

Here is the original post, and it does include the person's name, we do not believe in protecting someone if they are legitimately trying to commit a hoax on people.

Several folks looked at the photo and concluded that it was the end of a log protruding out from the tree.  When Chris was asked for further clarification, here is how that conversation went.

As you can see, Chris got very belligerent when called out on taking comparison photos.  This led him to being removed from the Oklahoma Bigfooters: Research and Bigfoot Sightings group page on Facebook.

Here is what many saw, the second photo shows the red lines where the log is seen extending from behind the log.

It was a log, pure and simple.  But now the kicker, other researchers in Western Oklahoma who had dealt with this guy and knew all about him, know exactly the spot where he claimed this photo was taken, and they confirmed it was nothing more than a log on the ground.  

So about a week later, Chris posts what he claims are comparison photos that he took of the spot to quell the jealousy of those who claimed he didn't have a photo of a Bigfoot.  I'm posting them here for people to compare for themselves.

 Okay, so you ask yourself, well didn't he go back and take the comparison photos like you asked him to?  Not really, if you look closely at the photos compared to the original one, he conveniently didn't take pictures of the same spot, he moved about 75 feet over to the right and took photos of an entirely different spot.   Chris is hoaxing the entire story and the photos to fit into his story.  He fabricated this story, knew the photos if he took them of the same spot would show it was indeed a log, so he had to take photos of a different location.

For anyone who reads this blog, and you live in the Western Oklahoma area, please be aware of Chris and anyone that hangs with him, they have been caught hoaxing other incidents too.

Comparing Purported Bigfoot Vocalizations with both Non-human and Human primates.

Author Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, Missouri State Director, MABRC

Over the years of researching the elusive primate that we have come to call Bigfoot, there seems to be some consistently purported vocalizations in areas of activity.  Even though I suspect that that Bigfoot uses a much wider variety of vocalization, some of which it has probably never been recorded, the most common seem to be the long howls(calls), the whoop, knocks, and screams.  Others that have been reported are grunts, whistles, roars, as well as woohoo.


As we know all primates also use gestural communication also.  The most common of these is rock or stick throwing, thumping and stomping, branch breaking, and bluff charges.  One other thing that seems to be significant with researchers is the feeling of being watched. If you have ever been someplace and got the feeling you were stared at and looked around and found someone doing it you can understand this feeling.  It happen a lot with people.  Other primates such as a gorilla it seems to be for a fairly specific reason.

staring: This where the sender has its eyes fixed on the receiver, the eyebrows are lowered, the head is angled down, and the lips are parted and pursed (Estes, 1991). This communicates aggression or annoyance (Estes, 1991).

We all got that look from our parents and grandparents so we all know what this one means!

With the modern-day advances of the Internet, researching sounds and animals has become easier.  Facebook and YouTube has in a lot of ways made Bigfoot research even harder with all the hoaxing that goes on with YouTube videos, as well as all the fringe groups with their cult-like followings.  However, you can use both as a positive thing.  When looking up primate vocalizations YouTube is full of them.  In doing so it is easy to copy the file and put it on a spectrogram compared to the purported Bigfoot vocalizations.  Facebook is not a great place where you can compare vocalizations with other researchers as very few do the background work and think everything is bigfoot.  I have heard so many normal animal vocals like owls, foxes, even squirrels being said is bigfoot.  But if a person is diligent you can find good folks who are willing to share and compare.    

In doing this paper I find it much easier to post a video with primate vocalizations than it is to try to describe.  The YouTube videos that I am using here are for comparison and educational use only.  And by no means am I claiming ownership of the majority of them.  However I have done what I can to insure that what I have used is authentic to the primate being represented.  I have done a lot of reading of information available on the Internet and come up with this hypothesis.  A list of referenced material are shown at the bottom of the page.  But as a disclaimer goes, this is my opinion based on extensive fieldwork, hundreds and hundreds of hours of audio review, and talking with other researchers about the suspected Bigfoot vocalizations.  I would really like to see other researchers use some of this in their research areas to either help confirm that it is a correct hypothesis or a false one.

It seems like a lot of times in Bigfoot research.  We hit a spot where what we used to do just does not seem to be working anymore or were not getting the answers to the questions our research is brought about.  I have put a lot of time in thought into this project and I am hoping with using this as a template that may be some more interactions can be made and knowledge increased.  All the skeptics out there will look at this and say that it is a bunch of BS because Bigfoot is not been proven to exist.  However, with all the researchers that have had sightings and other interactions know that they exist.  This entire paper is been written from a researchers point of view.

When looking at the vocalizations and gestural communication of the known primates, there seems to be a pattern of the use of certain vocalization that all primates use.  I believe that if we use what is known in the primates, it could help in deciphering what the purported bigfoot vocalizations may mean, as well as how we can use them in the woods while researching these animals.  By no means am I saying that this is the only possibility for the purported bigfoot vocalizations.  Until such time where they can be monitored by science to where the vocals are seen in context we will not know.    

 Historically, the common view of animal communication was that each vocal utterance corresponded to a particular emotion; screams for fear, barks for aggression, and coos for comfort (Smith, 1977; reviewed in Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990a; Hauser, 1996)

There is an ongoing debate about whether and to what extent nonhuman primate vocalizations are intentional, voluntarily controlled communicative means (TomaselloandZuberbu¨hler 2002). Although vocalizations seem to be largely innate, with a limited number of vocalizations in an individual’s repertoire, there is flexibility in regard to the usage and comprehension of vocalizations, with some species even comprehending the calls of other species, which requires learning (Zuberbu¨hler 2000a). In addition, there is some variation in certain calls as a function of population-specific dialects (Mitani, Hunley, and Murdoch 1999) or affiliation to a particular matriline (Hauser 1992)

There the specific vocals seen by scientists in context are talked about.  When we compare that to the purported Bigfoot vocals, it may be useful in the woods while researching.  Here is a good site for comparing a lot of non-primate vocals.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/av/vocals/

The long call.

The long call in primate research doesn't just mean the length of the call but more with the distance that it can be heard.  Most of these are used to as a way to joining back up the troop for food or as a possible mating call.  This is even true for humans.  Years back before texting and cell phones your parents would stand on the porch and yell for the kids and family at dinner time.  Even though we couldn't hear the actual words we knew the call.  Even in areas where there were kids from different families everyone knew who's mom was calling.  

In Chimps:  pant-hoot: This is consists of a series of loud calls which are rising and falling in pitch and often end in a scream (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987). This call is most often given by males, but females may also give it (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987). This call is given at abundant feeding sites, after smaller groups have been reunited after a few days, a response to loud calls, and as a response to charging display (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987).

In chimpanzees, the production of vocalizations varies with rank and social context: at Kibale,
high-ranking males call in all social contexts, whereas low-ranking males and females only call in mixed parties (Clark, 1993). At Gombe, all rank and sex classes also call in mixed parties at the provisioning site (Clark, 1993; Marler & Tenaza, 1977). Call production in chimpanzees also varies with ecological context. Captive studies show that production of loud calls (pant-hoots) in feeding contexts differed by the quantity and divisibility of the provisioned food (Hauser et al., 1993). Earlier work on wild chimpanzees at Gombe and Kibale (Ghiglieri, 1984; Wrangham, 1977) suggested that loud calls (arrival pant-hoots, APH) given upon arrival in food patches by male chimpanzees function to attract allies, mates, or both to abundant food sources.

In Orangutans:  loud call: This call is given by the adult male and consists of roars at first and then rises to bellows and is enhanced by the throat sac. This is used to demarcate territories and to attract a mate, and is important because the orang-utan lives in such dense forests that it is difficult to see other individuals.

( Parental Notice:  This one was only selected for the long call and does show mating so it should be watched by adults only)

Bonobo vocalizations have been studied in captivity (van Krunkelsven et al., 1996; deWaal, 1988) and the wild (Bermejo & Omedes, 1999; Hohmann & Fruth, 1994; Mori, 1983). It has been suggested that the long range vocalizations of this species, such as the high-hoot, are structurally better for localization of the source than for carrying over distances greater than 500 m (Hohmann & Fruth, 1994; deWaal, 1988). Male and female calls differ in pitch (Hohmann & Fruth, 1994). Krunkelsven et al. (1996) found that production of soft, “food peep” vocalizations was related to both social context and food quantity, but did not find sex differences in calling behavior in either context. De Waal (1988) described more than a dozen distinct types of loud and soft calls used by bonobos in captivity. During his study, most loud calls were used in exchanges between parties out of visual contact rather than being directed at individual conspecifics. Loud calls were also given during party movement and were associated with feeding (de Waal, 1988).  More recent captive studies have shown that bonobos change their foraging behavior in response to food-associated calls from others (Clay & Zuberbühler, 2009, 2011). Wild studies have found that bonobo loud calls vary through the day and were most frequent in late morning and late afternoon. The later peak was associated with travel to and construction of night nests. Observed parties’ most common response to calls of distant parties was to vocalize and/or travel (Hohmann & Fruth, 1994)

Using this information I think it is reasonable to suspect that vocals like the Missouri Scream and others have the same function. If one is to use call blasting as a way of trying to draw in possible bigfoot from a distance, this is one that I suspect will work.  

The biggest drawback for using call blasting is that with the equipment most researcher can afford can not get an adequate volume or sound quality of the original call.  However it is worth a try and there are those who have had success.  Just try and keep the volume mid-level to keep the mechanical sound to a minimum.

Here is some of the vocals purported to be bigfoot.  It seems to pretty much cover all the categories I've covered here.

Whoops, and other short abrupt calls.

One calls that Bigfoot is purported make is the Whoop.  In primates it would appear that these loud sharp and short vocals are used as an alert or mild aggression. From my personal experience while researching it does seem to be a alert call.  When we spotted what we took to be a juvenile and was mimicking what it was doing there was the vocals about 30* to our left that seemed to warn the juvenile that we had seen it.

Here is a compilation of some of the whoops I have recorded.

An example of the ways in which a communication system is not arbitrary is that across all known animals that make noise, a quick, high, sharp sound means danger. Conversely, a low, sustained sound is reassuring.

Wilson, Hauser, and Wrangham (2001) showed that, in response to the playback of the pant-hoot call of a single extragroup male, parties with three or more males consistently joined in a chorus of pant-hoots and approached the loudspeaker together, while parties with fewer adult males usually stayed silent and approached the loudspeaker less often.

In gorillas
wraaa: This call is given as a fear vocalization especially the fear of something strange (Estes, 1991).

wraagh: This call is also an outburst, but not deep as the roar, and is monosyllabic in nature (Estes, 1991). This call is mostly emitted by the silver-back male (Estes, 1991). This is emitted when the individual is experiencing sudden stress, and group members scatter when hearing this call (Estes, 1991).

pig grunts: This call consists of a series of short guttural noises (Estes, 1991). This call is given by adult males and females, and communicates mild aggression (Estes, 1991). This call is emitted when the adult wants access to preferred foods or right of way (Estes, 1991).

question bark: This call consists of a short series of three notes, the first and third being lower in pitch than the second (Estes, 1991). Mostly this is given by the silver-back male, and he emits this when he discovers someone that was concealed or another individual that is making noise but can not be seen (Estes, 1991).

chimpanzee -- Pan troglodytes

Tanzania, Kigoma 

http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/196297  ML 196297 © 2016 Cornell University (In the middle of the vocal sounds a lot like a whoop.)  

It would seem as if using whoops or other short abrupt call may not be of benefit to have Bigfoot approach.  With that in mind I would like to have others help to test this hypothesis.  I know it is hard for any of us to imagine that a researcher would want to take the chance of stopping an experience that may be bigfoot related, but if a person is getting spooked I would like them to try it to see what response they get before using white light.  Until more data is compiled I wouldn't suggest using this as a way of drawing them in.  


Screams:
Even though screams are a long distant call it appears to a single focus for primates.  

Gorillas scream: This call is loud and is a shrill sound repeated many times (Estes, 1991). This call is emitted by all gorillas, and is given when the individual is upset or fighting with other gorillas (Estes, 1991).

This video is covers pretty much all the known vocals of the Gorilla.

Chimpanzee screams

I highly suspect this to be true with the purported bigfoot screams to.  This has been reported in sightings reports and may also be the "Woman being murdered" vocal that we hear reported.  I have recorded screams in the woods that I have suspected to be related to bigfoot.  There was one time in particular where they seemed to respond to our granddaughters screams.  It even did appear as if whatever was screaming was moving closer.  However there were no possible sightings or suspected close activity so I'm not sure what was going on.  

This next one was recorded at an active research site in Oklahoma.

We do know that in human a scream is usually done when we are startled or scared.  Could on going screams mean that there is something to fear in the woods? In call blasting or mimicking this could be a way of drawing them in.  The researcher should be ready in case this is a scared or threatened bigfoot vocalization.  It could take make for a negative experience. 

Grunts, Knocks, Woohoo,(Woo) and Whistles

There is a unique way that primates keep track of one and another in the forests. Some of the ways are listed below.  I suspect the purported bigfoot knocks and other vocals are used for this purpose.  With the Silent Hill Project showing that knocks do NOT carry long distances, it can be assumed that it is a location type of call.  Each primate has a way of determining parent and offspring vocals through various vocalizations.  Although the differences may be subtle and only seen on the spectrogram each is individual.

Japanese Macaque coos

The coo is a common short-range vocalization between group members. It didn't seem to be restricted to any particular situation, but was just a noise that they made sometimes. He looked at spectrograms of the coos, divided them into different types, and realized that certain types happened during certain circumstances. This suggested that primate repertoires might be bigger than we had thought- and also that their calls were more context-specific than we had thought, which raised possibility that they might also be more representational than we had thought.

Here is what I suspect is the calls of the Woo, Woohoo vocals reported with possible Bigfoot activity.  These are some of what I have recorded during my research.

Knocks.

Knocks are the one of the most common sounds associated with suspected Bigfoot activity.  Even though we do not know the exact mechanism used, whether the wood on wood, rock on wood, or even could be a hand clap, chest beat.  The mechanism used is not known as it has not been observed. Recently we have started to respond when we hear what we suspect is knocks. 

Here is a few times where we did have success to that. 

Here is a real odd one.  A two tone double knock.

Even though we have had some success at getting responses to knocks, we always mimicked them and did not start the knocking sessions.  Again, these are not long distance sounds.  So if you are in the woods and hear one, I would suggest trying to reply.  It may extend the experience. 

Grunts.
This is one of the vocals that is reported and in my opinion is the least understood. As shown above gorillas can make a pig grunt type of vocal. 

pig grunts: This call consists of a series of short guttural noises (Estes, 1991). This call is given by adult males and females, and communicates mild aggression (Estes, 1991). This call is emitted when the adult wants access to preferred foods or right of way (Estes, 1991).

However the belch vocal that gorillas also use is a sign of contentment.

belch vocalizations: This call is given by all gorillas, generally when they are stationary, and generally communicates contentment (Estes, 1991). These noises consist of purring, humming, rumbling, crooning, moaning, and soft-grunting noises (Estes, 1991).

Table 1.
Overview of close call types and their contexts described for mountain gorillas (MG) and
western gorillas (WG).
Call type Species Context
Syllabled calls Grooming, in response to noise, by mothers to
infants, towards the end of resting periods
(Harcourt & Stewart, 1986; Harcourt et al., 1993;
Stewart & Harcourt, 1994)
Single grunt MG/WG Feeding, resting, travelling (Salmi et al., 2013)
Double grunt MG/WG Individually distinct (Seyfarth et al., 1994);
feeding, resting, travelling (Salmi et al., 2013)
2 subtypes MG Spontaneous and reply call (Seyfarth et al., 1994)
Triple grunt MG Unknown
Inverted grunt MG Unknown
Train grunt/whinny∗ MG/WG Mating (Harcourt et al., 1993; Salmi et al., 2013;
Watts et al., 1991; Sicotte, 1994)
Non-syllabled calls As chorus when individuals are feeding and
moving close together (Harcourt et al., 1993)
Grumble MG/WG More by low ranking as compared to high ranking
individuals (Harcourt et al., 1993); feeding, resting,
travelling (Salmi et al., 2013)
Hum MG/WG Mainly feeding, rarely resting and travelling (Salmi
et al., 2013)
High hum/sing MG/WG Feeding (Salmi et al., 2013)

Dog whine MG Unknown

In Chimps

pant-grunt: This consists of a series of soft, low grunts (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987). This is given by subordinate individuals to dominate ones as a response to dominance displays, such as the charging display (Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987).

Here is where you can compare a lot of gorilla vocals with.  By listening to this the above vocals will make more sense.

Here is a site with some of the best Chimpanzee vocals I have been able to find for comparison purposes.  Do to high number of vocals that chimps do for the range of reasons there is a lot of stuff here.

http://gombechimpanzees.org/activities/vocal-communication/

Some of the grunts that are reported as possible bigfoot may have the same purpose as some of the grunts we hear could be like the Belch Vocals of the Gorillas and the pant-grunt in the Chimps, a relaxed vocal.  However some of the grunts seem aggressive like the Pig Grunt in Gorillas.  I do think that a seasoned researchers should try to mimic these types of vocalizations to see how they are responded to.  If they are a non threatening vocal it may help to extend the encounter and possibly add to it.  Until this type of vocal is studied more I would not suggest to be alone if you do it. 

Aggressive vocals, Roars, Charge Displays
Roars are I believe with every animal as sign of aggression.  Here is one of a gorilla roar.  Notice the way it charges the people behind the glass.  Because of the glass and it knowing it is there it is really unknown if this was a bluff charge or would have been a real one.  

Here is some of the possible roars that I have recorded over the years.  Even though I can not say definitely they are from a bigfoot they don't seem to match with the known animals in my area.  With primates known to use roars when aggravated it is not out of the realm to think that a bigfoot wouldn't.  Here is some of what I think are roars from my research area.

chest-beating: This behavior is done by all gorillas and the either one or two open-fist hands are clapped against the chest (Estes, 1991). Adult males produce a sound when doing this because of air sacs they have which are located on both sides of their throat (Estes, 1991). For the adult male this is a threat display (Estes, 1991).

http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/126334

In Chimps 
charging display: This is where an individual is running and/or throwing objects such as branches or stones and/or pant-hooting, drumming, slapping, stamping, and screaming (Estes, 1991). This display is performed by adult males and occurs when a dominant meets another individual after a long time or done by the alpha male to keep all others subordinate to him (Estes, 1991). This display also occurs by an adult male when there is a heavy rainstorm (Estes, 1991).

This type of thing may account for the for some of the broken branches and trees that some have attributed to bigfoot.  When other primates use these things to display dominance or as a way to show off to a possible mate it would not be a huge leap to suspect bigfoot could also do displays like this.  

We all know this happens in humans too.  All the behaviors we see such a bullying, trying to gain attention from the opposite sex, even the favorite line of "watch this" in childhood and adulthood is to try and show worthiness.  

Here is an audio clip that was recorded of what I suspect is bigfoot.  It shows all the characteristics of aggressive sounds that is used by primates.  It is unknown of why the vocals were made as it was recorded with a recorder left on the truck during a day hike.

(This is a long vocal event and has not been altered in time or quality)

(This is a shorten clip with comparisons to a gorilla and some of the audio cleaned up for better clarity)

And it is not a one time event.

This type of thing is also somewhat in the grunt category so as I said above using any type of grunt is a risk.  Only researchers that are ready for the possible results should attempt to use it either as a mimic, or in call blasting in the field. 

One other thing that is reported with bigfoot is smell.

There are numerous reports of a smell associated with Bigfoot.  Some primates have a smell at times.  If this holds true with bigfoot as it does in other primates it could also explain why it is not reported every time.  People also have more odor produced if they are nervous or excited.  

In Gorillas

fear smell: This is produced by the silver-back male, and comes from glands under his armpits (Estes, 1991). This signals excitement or an aggressive threat (Estes, 1991).

Information of the Author

Randy "Rebelistic" Savig
Missouri State Director for the MABRC
Investigator/Researcher for the MABRC
Member of the MABRC Evidence Review Board

(This is the link to my research thread on the MABRC forums)

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5477

(This is my personal YouTube channel as has the audio that I have collected over the years of possible bigfoot sounds.)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuv6YBrCjndC78609PtIr9g 

References. 
http://www.primates.com/welcome.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog2403_5/pdf
http://primate.uchicago.edu/2008CA.pdf
https://sites.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/seyfarth/files/seyfarthcheney-alb-97.pdf
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-362
http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/88p059.pdf
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/av/vocals/
http://www.brockferguson.com/writeable/custom_uploads/52c29163b37ad0b2181b038322574418.pdf
http://www.iupui.edu/~mstd/a103/primate%20lecture%203.html
http://gombechimpanzees.org/activities/vocal-communication/
http://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Brill/Hedwig_Acoustic_Behaviour_2014_2043808.pdf

Acoustic structure and variation in mountain and
western gorilla close calls: a syntactic approach

Daniela Hedwig a,∗, Kurt Hammerschmidt b, Roger Mundry a,
Martha M. Robbins a and Christophe Boesch a
a Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Primatology,
Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
b German Primate Centre, Cognitive Ethology Lab, Kellerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
*Corresponding author’s e-mail address: hedwig@eva.mpg.de
Accepted 10 January 2014; published online 14 February 2014

Western Gorilla Vocal Repertoire and Contextual Use of
Vocalizations

Roberta Salmi*, Kurt Hammerschmidt† & Diane M. Doran-Sheehy‡
* Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
† Cognitive Ethology Laboratory, German Primate Center, G€ottingen, Germany
‡ Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA