Talk:Bloop

Gas bubble?

I've listened to the Bloop recording and it hardly resembles a biological sound. In fact, it sounds like a very large air-bubble escaping its former confines. I've seen some recent Scientific studies on The Science Channel that energy companies are researching alternative energy sources (Methane) and that some of these sources could derive from the ocean floor. So, it would be possible to build a theory that these noises are gigantic methane burps eminating from the Earth's crust. --Bourbon King 20:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Bourbon King--Bourbon King 20:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that scientist are very aware of gas rising from the bottom of the ocean. The sound file that has been made available has been speeded up also, and I think scientist have an idea of what makes that sound biological and they base their assumptions on some other information concerning oceanic life. The sound could be from bubbles, but perhaps bubbles caused by an animal. And I think Wikipedia is no place to build up new theories about the phenomeon but to inform about existing theories.

Oh, it does sound a bit like a bubble. But keep in mind that the various recordings you'll find on the net are sped up at least 16x. I've heard a slower version, and it doesn't sound like anything at all. Remember, these are very low frequency recordings. Radix 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, on the NOAA link, it says that the recording was sped up.

I'm fairly cetain that scientists may have considered the revolutionary "maybe it's a bubble?" theory. So on one hand we hand we have presumably well-funded and educated specialists with experience in the field and the correct instruments, and on the other we have some guy who downloaded a sound file from the net. Ummmm.... (Falcore)

Geez! Guy has an idea and you jump all over him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.174.24 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As of today, these well-funded and (supposedly) well-educated specialists haven't drawn to any conclusions, as the article points out they are OPEN to any suggestions which tells me that anybody's guess is as good as their well-funded ones. That hardly merits them as "gifted" in my book. LOL ---

"Anybody's guess is as good as their well-funded ones." Wrong! These people know more about what's going on down there than a random "anybody." They're aware it IS something different, but just because they don't have a clue of what it could possibly be it doesn't mean their opinions are as valid as any other. You can't try to make a grand unified theory if you don't know anything of physics, and just because physicists are battling to find one for years it doesn't mean theirs are just as good as yours would be. So, a good theory is backed up with data and knowledge, and these people have it, so their theories are better. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From reading the article there's hardly much of a theory listed, nor explained in the provided links. All they say is that it's bigger than any living whale, but not how much bigger. Sounds pretty vague at best, not really a theory.--71.131.251.244 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not bigger; just louder. Kothog (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the article: Bloop is also a slang term for marijuana popularized in the San Francisco Bay Area. -- Stephen Gilbert 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What size creature are we talking about?

The creature believed to be responsible for this noise is said to be larger than any living whale, but just how much bigger are we talking? 2 times bigger, 3 times bigger?

Big enough to be the final boss in a video game!

--71.131.251.244 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that´s big...--Threedots dead 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear it'd also have power ratings of over nine thousand :O Wardrich (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a gigantic crustacean with a hostile attitude! Flip it over its back and attack its weak point for MAXIMUM DAMAGE!!! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Think Cthulhu big. In order to create sounds such as this, the monstrosity would have to be about that size. If you do not know what/whom Cthulhu is, the phrase "A mountain walked, or stumbled" sums up the creature's size. High Deity (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate and unfounded extrapolation with very little, or at best a shakey logical foundation. If you're even serious. Kothog (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

About one and a half times the size of a blue whale. I found here: http://www.dearbluelobster.com/2008/01/bloop-crustacean-phenomenon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbbeto (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just Devil doing a bass solo :) 91.153.228.113 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Blue Whale can be heard 500 miles away. The Bloop was heard 5000 miles away. Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

According to that if we consider that it is a mass equivalent analogy, it must weight about 1 million kilograms and it's length should be at about 60 meters. The mass analogy is directly related to its volume (geometric increase) and length analogy is numerical progress. Btw I really suck in maths so instead of doing calculations I just made an intuitional comparison of a large minke (10 meters, 10 tonnes) to an average blue whale (25 meters, 100 tonnes). Math experts do not devour my soul please!--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't just just multiplie it. There's only a variety fo size you probably could define. It is not just one scale named "big animal = loud noise". There are several things that influence all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.227.241 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthur Trivia Section

I'm removing the Furthur Trivia section, which states "The geographic coordinates of the sound were, interestingly, somewhat close to those of the lost city of R'lyeh from H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu stories." To me, this is completely errelevant, as there are millions of fictional works, and probably every coordinate on Earth has been described in at least one of them. MickeyK 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely see your point, but it does seem relevant to some people (v. the dedicated Bloop page) so I think it's worth mentioning, especially as mere trivia. I've changed the wording somewhat, if that helps. Lusanaherandraton 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

They're really not that close, though... 82.166.53.176 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please leave it. That made me so happy I could plotz. (On the other hand, just how close was it? That'd be good to know.) --Masamage 04:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorta goes along with the article because Cthulhu is supposed to be very, very large. 69.255.21.213 01:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There are millions of fictional works, but this is Lovecraft we are talking about. Plus its kind of a fun bit of trivia. 58.7.0.146 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, hi. Not sure if I'm doing this right. First time contributing, I'll get an account later. Anyway, since it was asked, I checked my copy of the 'Call of Cthulhu' story (from 'The Best of H.P. Lovecraft', 1982 Ballantine Books). The exact quote is 'and in S. Latitude 47[degrees] 9', W. Longitude 126 [degrees] 43', come upon a coastline...' Not knowing much about geography, I have no idea how close that is to the bloop.

Thanks! That's very useful.

50 S 100 W compared to 47 S 126 W? *researches nautical miles about* Well, that's a small but countable number of miles/kilometers off. But then, how big is R'lyeh? :)

Since the subject matter is so mysterious, it's fun to know stuff like this. It would be worth working out exactly how far off the signal is, though, and putting that instead of 'somewhat close'. Much more informative. --Masamage 02:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that he died in 1937, I'd say he was pretty close! Kamikaze Highlander 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The monolith-esque city of R'lyeh was large enough to house Cthulhu and many other minions and star-kin. I believe it would be quite the site, had it existed. (For enthusiasts as myself, I hope against hope in favor of its reality) High Deity (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

R'lyeh is BIG. It's said that the "city" that is seen in the story is only a tiny portion of it: "I suppose that only a single mountain-top, the hideous monolith-crowned citadel whereon great Cthulhu was buried, actually emerged from the waters." So, at least a really large island, and in "At the Mountains of Madness", it's implied to be an entire continent: "all the lands of the Pacific sank". Vultur (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Reference

I removed the reference to the blooper enemies of SMB, due to the fact that they appeared before 1997 and the bloop itself.

Not to mention 'bloop' being a generic sound-effect word. Good call. --Masamage 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Search

It seems to me that a rational thought towards investigating this, especially since it was heard several times in a local area, would be to possibly send something to search the area? Did no one send anyone or anything to the place to see if they could find anything? Has the area been searched since then?

As for being an animal or something, I don't know. You'd think we'd have heard it again, it has been almost a decade. Whatever it was, and assuming it hasn't been repeated or anything, we can assume it was some special event that hasn't occured since, or before(or at least in the past of the sensors involved).

Besides, the scientists only had a rough estimate of where something might be. Based upon this they would have to find the appropriate funding for an expedition, which would be almost impossible. On top of that, the ocean is, as you know, enormous. The chances of coming across something, even if it´s bigger than a blue-whale, are slim at best.--Threedots dead 15:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, funding for such an expedition would be almost impossible to secure unless there was some certainty of a result. At this point it would take some less controversial evidence at the very least. As stated above we haven't heard anything on it recently that would indicate the sound was picked up before or since. Perhaps if the sound itself could be picked up again, or for a longer period of time the capital could be allocated for such a venture. As it stands right now, i think it would take either an eccentric billionare or a combined effort of people like us to launch an investigation. A shame really, this is one of those mysteries that drives me crazy. That being said I'm somewhat torn on whether or not we should actually go looking for this thing. If it is as big as it's believed to be and located in such a remote part of the ocean it might be a better idea to let sleeping monsters lie....so to speak. --Ravynsvoid (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Better? BETTER? No, nevah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.247.239 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd Article

Some of the wording in this article is ambiguous or incomplete; it would be nice for the original author to go back and do a re-edit. For instance, this is from the article: "The Bloop, although it sounded like a blue whale, originated 4,800 km away, seemingly ruling out any known marine animal."

4,800 km away from what? I can only assume they meant the sensors that recorded the sound. Why does it rule out any known marine animal? Is it too deep? Too far from shore? Or does it mean that because the sound was so loud from so far away, it must have been something bigger than any known animal? I can only assume. This is an extremely ambiguous statement.

Some of the question about the trivia section discussed above would have been answered as well if it was mentioned WHY this is significant. Of course, as is stated in the discussion above, probably every single location on earth has been mentioned in a book somewhere before.

But how many books have mentioned a specific longitudal location of an ancient sleeping sea monster, and then, in real life, a mysterious noise is recorded underwater, which some scientists speculate may be from a huge animal, very close to the same position named in the book? I think that's very relevant. It should have been explained in the article.

It can't be explained. Aside from the proximity, it's pure coincidence. Honestly.. the Lovecraft work was fiction. So either some sneaky Sub guy was pulling our collective legs, or it was a colossal (no pun intended) coincidence. :-) Kothog (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

50 S 100 W compared to 47 S 126 W: approx. 1000 nautical miles apart, i.e nowhere near, not "very close" (roughly 2000 Kilometers distant). It is as remarkable a coincidence as someone writing about strange lights in the sky over the southern tip of Italy and then something unexplainable being recorded over London a few generations later. Put a 2000Km wide circle on the globe and you're bound to find something to 'tally up' in the covered area, especially if you add several decades either way as an extra dimension, and then include works of fiction as another. 81.178.114.172 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are by the numbers correct. Modified article accordingly, for improved accuracy. However, this is the ocean we're talking about. From the human, surface perspective, this still isn't that far off. What other nearby points of interest even exist down there? LOL. Kothog (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, 50 S, 100 W this was heard from. What a coincidence. How deep is the ocean at that spot? I'll bet you that nobody has ever explored the ocean at that depth, which may lead me to believe that there IS, in fact, something down there we don't even know that exists. Either this thing is a GIGANTIC, lifeform that can adapt to VERY cold water, a tiny creature that can emit very low pitched sounds, some sort of event that is triggered by something in the earth, the ruins of a lost city, or simply something we just don't know.--71.253.97.210 02:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unexplained, nothing more. No reason to phantasize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.217.86 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Train etc

Has anyone proposed any theories for the other unidentified sounds available on the NOAA website? --71.189.165.175 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Chrisrus (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

SOSUS

I read something on CNN about Bloop and it mentioned that the sensor system is known as SOSUS. However, this article says something slightly different. I was just hoping someone more knowledgeable about the topic than myself could try to figure this out. 24.136.45.122 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SOSUS was the name of the NAVY buoy network the NAVY used. SOSUS was located quite a bit further north than Bloop.. You can see more information about SOSUS here: SOSUS Brief Summary by the NOAA Kothog (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating

This is fascinating. I gotta improve this article somehow.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 01:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a source

This source from CNN [1]. I'm not sure its actually talking about this bloop. including an unidentified "bloop" that crops up from time to time They seem to be talking about a recurring unidentified noise. This article is talking about a specific noise of unknown origin which seems to be during a single summer 4 years before this was written. Its written in such a way to indicate the "bloops" they are referring to are ongoing, not a past incident. I also removed another reference which was word for word copy of a previous one. I'm also clearing out the fictional sea monsters. While jokingly speculated at in the articles it doesn't seem to be any kind of serious consideration by the scientists.--Crossmr (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not completely accurate. When the Director of the National Geophysical Data Center at the NOAA says he has a "hunch" it's an animal, and when the sound was recorded multiple times over the span of at least two summers, and when the original article you apparently excised cites the same Chris Fox at the same NOAA, we can reasonably conclude that it is the same thing, and that it is being seriously considered by real live scientists. Is this not so? Kothog (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Audio file description

Who posted the awful .ogg file? Whoever did that doesn't even understand the concept of sampling rate. The .ogg file currently available for this article is a farce. The "chattering" sound is from the sampling algorithm used to "slow down" the sound while retaining the frequency. This is not at all what the bloop sounds like. It sounds like a very low frequency bloop. The description on the NOAA site and the wav file there is CORRECT. If you run a fast Fourier transform analysis on the wave file hosted on the NOAA site, the spectrogram is identical to that shown in the NOAA description besides being 16 times higher in frequency. I will upload a proper version of the file and link the article to it. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk

I fixed the file. It is now the 16x version from the NOAA site, simply cropped to the "bloop" sound. If you want to listen to it in real time you'll need a low-frequency speaker capable of recreating sounds at around 50hz. Play the file at a sampling rate of 2756 Hz to hear the true Bloop sound. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk

The audio file was described as being 16 times its original speed. This was incorrect; the file hosted here was taken from BloopWatch[2], where it is claimed to be a 16x slower version of that found at the NOAA Vents page[3]. NOAA claims to have increased the speed of the original 16x, so presumably the audio file used in this article is at the original (true) speed, although the pitch has clearly been increased. (I've done my own testing of the original file; when slowed 16x, the resulting "bloop" falls well into subwoofer territory, as the spectrogram suggests. The file here is much higher.)

I have corrected the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've "uncorrected" the description, since the .ogg file lasts 10 seconds, just like the "16 times sped-up" ones of BloopWatch. The "realtime" ones last 2 minutes 45 seconds. So the .ogg file is sped up. There is no reason to assume that the sound hosted here, before conversion from .wav to .ogg format, was taken from a different source than the reliable one it is claimed to be on its description page, which is the website of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the NOAA, and not BloopWatch.  --Lambiam 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's original speed and cropped. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The more bold the claim, the more compelling the evidence need be. Original speed (16 times slower than the NOAA file) barely registers even on my subwoofer. I doubt sincerely it's original speed. Tar7arus (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you not look at the frequency spectrograph?! It is exactly correct if you slow down the sound by a factor of 16. Run a Fast Fourier Transform on the file (most wave editors should be able to do this, or you can import it into MATLAB and do it there) and look at the frequency power spectrum. Do this at 44100hz and at 2756hz. You will see which it is correct. The high frequency in this file is around the lowest that common subwoofers will reproduce. You need to be able to reproduce sounds which are even outside the human hearing range.. the frequency of the sound is one of the reasons this is so intriguing. An animal would have to be very large to produce the frequency of sound, not just the loudness level. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk

I've spent a considerable amount of time analyzing this sound file (and others at NOAA), motivated purely by a personal interest in the subject, only to have some pompous asshat swoop in and, with a barely-interested gesture of his royal scepter, undo my well-founded edit and saunter off with his nose in the air and his kingly robes flowing behind him. Most editors don't have any desire to engage in an edit war, and cranks like Lambiam know it. These people are perfectly happy to lay in the tall grass, monitoring Wiki articles, waiting for an edit to revert. Those of us who are motivated by personal interest alone will never prevail unless we become motivated also by a sense of turf, and are willing to monitor and defend our edits. I am not so motivated. This is why Wikipedia has failed as a serious reference, and will continue to fail unless these Wiki-thugs are reigned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No original research. If you've spent considerable time on it, get your findings published somewhere and if its important it will likely end up, cited, in the article. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bloop

I'm not going to pretend like I fully understand this thing, but I came here looking for information, and a good clip I could share with others. The current clip is only 2 seconds long, and, well, it's just crap all around. What am I supposed to say if I shared this: "the clip on the Discovery Channel I heard was pretty cool, here is a really, really crappy 2 second version of it: 'blup-blup-blup'. Yeah, that was it in all it's 2 second glory." Seriously. There's a line of common sense of when an audio clip becomes useless. 66.25.254.123 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me better clarify that: it wouldn't be so bad that it's so short if the whole file wasn't so short as well; a clip containing the sound's natural "fade-in" and "fade-out" would be much better than the current instantaneously cropped one. 66.25.254.123 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cthulhu

Would it be unencyclopediac to put a big red box on the article which states, "Yes, we KNOW about C'thulu. Don't add it." ?

In all seriousness, does this count as vandalism that can merit long-term semi-protection? This article is unlikely to grow much, and I'm eventually going to expand it--there are more sources, and its on my to-do list on my user page. But the C'thulu thing is just nonsense. Lawrence Cohen 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cthulu thing is retarded. The supposed relationship between Cthulu and the Bloop is far from encyclopedic. If its just a coincidence, don't add it. If H.P. Lovecraft meant for Cthulu and the Bloop to be connected, then there's a slight chance we could put it in. But for right now, I think its safe to assume its a coincidence. Besides, the supposed location of Cthulu is prettu far away from the Bloop, atleast from the information on the previous revisions that I've seen.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Cthulu thing is retarded." The "theism" thing has even less coincidents on its side yet we still have to respect the mass paranoia and axcept it as a "possibility" just because this hypothesis is being embraced as "absolute" truth by 90% of a primate species population. Though the Cthulu hypothesis is still far from rational is still more well supported than other popular beliefs.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the sound was heard on multiple sensors that were over 4300km apart, a 2000km or so difference in location(when the 'roughly 50 S 100 W' is obviously a very vague guess) really isn't that large. Also, I severely doubt a dead man could have 'meant' for Cthulhu to be related to a noise that occured long after he died. 71.102.31.14 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree with you except for the distance thing, and yeah, it is a very vague guess. That's why I oppose the mention of that in this article.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty stupid. But enough people keep ramming it in that I'm still going to search for sources when I have time, just to satiate my own curiosity if nothing else. :) Lawrence Cohen 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was obviously either Cthulhu or Cloverfield. Or a battle between them. --NEMT (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking the "Life Is Full Of Possibilities" reference back in. It was last seen in the Nov 16 07 revision. How do we cite to a recorded media source that isn't on the 'net? One Mississippi (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it wasn't REALLY Cthulhu, but the correspondence is better than the distance given above makes it sound. R'lyeh was an entire continent, or at least a very, very large island.Vultur (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I do find it bizzairy amusing that C'thulu is the only explanation ;) 81.79.210.120 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right, of course, but it is a big part of why this article is here at all. I mean, why is some random noise like this notable enough to have an article? Most of the others don't. The fact that this has captured the imagination of so many people is such a big part of it's notablity that, if wild specuation didn't happen, this article might never have been written. Chrisrus (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular Facts

If your going to remove an entire section let the talk page know first. Wikipedia is not a place to uncover the truth of a matter. We're here to highlight facts, not resolve mysteries (Crossmr). KriticKill (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why slowed down?

The article doesn't clarify for the sake of laymen why the sound has to be sped up to be heard. If the original sound is, say, 8 minutes long, and only sounds like a "bloop" when you play it in 30 seconds, why would you assume that it was 30 seconds of animal blooping and not 8 minutes of background noise? Does the oceanic layer it was recorded in dampen the sound waves so that the sound is slower than it should be or something? 174.46.172.13 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, these clips are provided by NOAA, so they made the choice. However, my best guess at why it's provided in 16x sped up form is: 1) These sounds are very slow "sweeps", and not significantly noticeable when played at 1x speed, and 2) it saves on bandwidth costs. 24.205.42.102 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, "If you want to listen to it in real time you'll need a low-frequency speaker capable of recreating sounds at around 50hz. Play the file at a sampling rate of 2756 Hz to hear the true Bloop sound. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk" ----

We should have a variety of speeds, so people with different speakers can hear it as best they can. Then we should just explain that not everyone can hear all of them and why. Chrisrus (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans can't hear anything lower than about 20 Hz. Bloop includes that frequency in its upsweep. It would be meaningless and broken to play the sound at its original speed. For the layperson, it is better to hear it at a familiar speed rather than sit there for a minute or two waiting to hear something which is barely perceptible. It would effectively be silence. My hard drive is louder. Anyway, there's a new link now with the original data to listen to. Listen for yourself and see what I mean. :-) Kothog (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Spectrogram

Spectrogram image with Y-axis 0 to 50 hz looks like absurd and nonsence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.231.67 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You have my attention Mr. Annonymous. Why is a spectrogram image with that kind of Y axis "absurd" and "nonsence"? 72.230.11.240 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Has it ever happened again?

Because if it's only ever happened once in history that's not really likely to be biological is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It has appeared multiple times during the summer of '97. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.109.104 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh...quite obviously he meant "did it happen again after that year". Since the "bloop" is not just a single thing from one point, but the instance of the "bloop" over that year. 119.11.16.241 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

No, after '97 it has not been heard. Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bloop and Slow Down proof enough?

Bloop and Slow Down were both heard in 1997 and both in May/June. Both nearly in the same region. Both sounds were never heard again. This can't be a coincidence. Both sounds surely originated from the same source. Isn't that proof, that is has to be an animal? Slow Down was heard several thousand miles away from Bloop. So whatever the origin was, it moved (or better swam) several thousand miles between both sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof of what? What Animal? Science allows for things to be unexplained but there is nothing that meets any measure of scientific proof for a source identification or the nature of the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.14.206 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the most crap method of organizing facts and/or postulations I have ever seen in my life. Wikipedia, please stop this before the feces clogs my synapses. This page states directly below the edit window that encylopedic content must be verifiable. It is verifiable that in "Call of Cthulhu" by H.P. Lovecraft, the location of "sunken R'lyeh" is at 47 degrees 9 minutes south and 123 degrees 43 minutes west. It is verifiable that the estimated emanation point of the Bloop is at 50 degrees south and 100 degrees west. It is verifiable that these two points are, in the larger scheme of things, relatively close to one another. It is verifiable that many people have made the speculation, however ridiculous, that the noise could be Mighty Cthulhu himself. Therefore a reference to Cthulhu bears on an article about the Bloop. In conclusion, people who enjoy attributing the word "retarded" to things they don't agree with, should perhaps take a spelling class or two before they involve themselves in arguments with people who possess brains, lest they themselves be perceived as such.

                                                             - Nucka  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.4.122 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 

"In the larger scheme of things" "relatively" close? Your twisted grammar notwithstanding, I think arbitrarily declaring that one of the locations of the 'bloop' and the FICTIONAL location of Rlyeh are 'close enough' to warrant mention is an extremely weak argument, and still unsourced and unnotable. Maybe if a Lovecraft-pastiche novel was published linking the two events it might bear a mention, but otherwise it's just silliness on par with "AYBABTU" or lolcats. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this map to show their relative positions:

Slow down Position: [4]

Bloop Position: [5]

More pages for different unidentified marine sounds?

On the NOAA website, they've got a few more sounds that don't have a page. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to create pages for these? Valadar917 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do! Why not? Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

i think it would be a good idea the one titled Trane and the one titled Julia are really interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.193.182 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war

While you're right about what scientists PROBABLY think, you're just saying so yourself without citing anything. The truth is, there are several citable ways to clarify for the reader that it couldn't have been biological, though it doesn't sound like an earthquake or a volcano or any such known thing.

First, it's way too loud. There is no way any living thing could make such a loud sound. It'd have to have been many times bigger than the biggest known animal, so it couldn't have been an animal.

Second, it only happened in one year. No animal makes a sound only one year and then never makes the sound again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magicicada. Your argument is invalid. Also coincidentally cicadas happen to be the loudest invertebrates known to man.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Individual cicada's may make a sound once and never again, but as a species they make the sound repeatedly. Chrisrus (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We know it wasn't an earthquake or volcano nor an animal. We don't know what it was, but I've heard speculation that it might have been some kind of chemical reaction that released a lot of gas, like that lake in Africa that turned over that one time.

The point is, we don't know what it was, but we know what it wasn't. And one of the things it couldn't have been is an animal. We have enough citable material to write it this way. But you can't just write in words to the effect of "the only people who beleive that are cryptozoologists, not real sientists" when that's you talking, no source we have says that. I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I sympathize, but you're going about it the wrong way. Chrisrus (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/ this artical says a marine biologist at Boston University thinks the sound is probably biological in origin88.97.6.98 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• To reiterate, Dr. Fox of the NOAA himself has a "hunch" it's animal in origin. Dr. Fox is not a cryptozoologist.. It is unscientific to state flatly (in this case) that the Bloop is not animal in origin. I mean you can state flatly, "My breakfast table didn't eat me this morning," and be certain enough in your statement and your presence that you are correct. Plus the fact you're in front of other people is proof enough it didn't happen. But in this case? We don't know what it is, but actual scientists keep saying it's probably biological. Use a little creativity: how could it be biological in origin but as loud as it was? Some kind of echo chamber effect at the deep sound channel? You simply can't say it wasn't animal in origin. Kothog (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Fox quoted accurately?

Where in this article http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/102ns_001.htm is Dr. Fox paraphrased as saying that the biological hypothesis is reasonable? Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, yes. My sincere apologies for not being completely clear. The prior note I was trying to improve on was the poorly-written Skeptoid piece which has basically nothing to do with science and itself has poorly-cited sources, when it bothers to cite at all. At one point it instructs the reader to Google for his sources, themselves. Yikes. Anyway, in the Nova linked article, the writer says, "Fox's hunch is that the sound nicknamed Bloop is the most likely to come from some sort of animal, because its signature is a rapid variation in frequency similar to that of sounds known to be made by marine beasts." And therefore does Dr. Fox paraphrased that the biological hypothesis is reasonable. Perhaps embedding the quote itself in the article would be a better way to indicate this rather than what I did. I will note, however, that neither my comment nor the paraphrase itself is a direct quote from Dr. Fox. On the other hand, it is pretty clear: he thinks it's biological. Kothog (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the part you were referring to?:

“….Fox's hunch is that the sound nicknamed Bloop is the most likely to come from some sort of animal, because its signature is a rapid variation in frequency similar to that of sounds known to be made by marine beasts. There's one crucial difference, however: in 1997 Bloop was detected by sensors up to 4800 kilometres apart. That means it must be far louder than any whale noise, or any other animal noise for that matter. Is it even remotely possible that some creature bigger than any whale is lurking in the ocean depths? Or, perhaps more likely, something that is much more efficient at making sound? In my mind, the suggestion of huge ocean creatures raises a vision of giant squid. There are no confirmed sightings of giant squid in the wild, though dead ones have washed up on beaches, and whales sometimes bear telltale sucker-shaped scars. "We don't have a clue whether they make noise or not," says Fox…”

Yes, that is the part I was referring to. However, your other assertion is incomplete. Not only have archeteuthis dux been caught, filmed, and examined live, a new variety of squid called mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni (a.k.a. the colossal squid) has actually been caught and is currently on display in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. The suggestion of huge ocean creatures most likely excludes cephalopods because no cephalopod known has any gas sacs capable of generating such a noise, and we have never measured large squid making such noises. It's not an impossibility, but it is an improbability. Course, everything about the Bloop is an improbability, so I suppose it's not that much of a stretch to imagine such a beast. Kothog (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal and Cryptozoology tag removal

How does the Bloop fall under either the cryptozoology tag, let alone the paranormal tag? Absent cogent argument to the contrary, I will take the unusual (for me) step of going beyond my usually-contemplated minor edits and remove these tags myself. To push it into the realm of pseudoscientific study is to push this otherwise fascinating little mystery into the realm of bigfoot and the loch ness monster, the "evidence" for which is indistinct melted footprints in the snow, endless streams of faked videos, and claims and sightings that have no substance to them whatsoever. I refuse to allow this beautiful little mystery to be co-opted by such categorisations. If we allow it to be so, no scientist worth his salt will bother answering any queries, let alone actually devoting useful thought to it. Then we'll never get a bloody answer! Kothog (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. I appreciate it. Tags removed. Kothog (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Eltanin impact crater and the bloop?

Has anyone looked at this? http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/bt39l/six_creepy_unexplained_audio_recordings_from_the/c0offpx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.197.183 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Need some dates

The article needs some clarification with regard to the dates that the Bloop was recorded in 1997. Some sources that are linked state that it occurred in the "summer of 1997". This is unsatisfactory because some of the sources also state that the Bloop occurred at a latitude of 50 degrees South (it is not good style to use seasonal references from the wrong hemisphere). The sources that are linked appear to be secondary references (New Scientist, CNN and the like) that appear to be quoting the same primary source. What's needed are primary references such as science papers so we can obtain any dates and incorporate them into the article. A good primary reference may also have other information that would allow the article to be expanded. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, summer for which hemisphere? To address your larger point, I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that no one has written any scientific papers about the Bloop. The closest thing we have to a primary report is the webside of the agency. You are right about what you say, but I don't know what to do about it. Oh well....Chrisrus (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The second recording linked may have a datestamp embedded in the filename itself. 1997253230100. That's either the 25th of March, or the 5th of February. Or something else. Neither time is summer, but then this is a second recording. If 23:01:00 is the timestamp, then it's more likely the 25th of March. Anyway, it's an ambiguous primary source but it is a primary source. The primary article is the David Wolman interview with Dr. Fox. That is as primary as you're going to get without getting something written by Dr. Fox himself, or the people who collected the data. SUMMARY of my point: Two more primary sources: on bloop.rune.ca, and second primary source the David Wolman article. The only mention of 'summer' is on the NOAA, that I can see. Therefore it is likely that it is summer according to the U.S. Kothog (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Will you be editing the article with this?Chrisrus (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... A few more thoughts: First, February is summer at The Bloop's location. Next, the stamp would have been applied with the date of the computer where it was received, so where was that? Third, you're right, it's as primary as source as could be imagined, because it's part of the referent of the article, a recording of a sound. Finally, why don't we just ask Fox directly? It's worth a try. We can't cite personal communication with him, but we can use it to understand the material we can cite. I've already contacted Dr. Lobel in this way, asking that he clarify his statements on this matter, which seem ambiguous: he can be cited by those who believe it's "probably biological" as well as those who scoff "far to loud for that to be possible". But I don't want to distract you from MY MAIN POINT: You are on to something, Kothog, stay on the trail! Chrisrus (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of analysis belongs in the article proper. The format may have been a stamp of the original listening post or a stamp on some NOAA computer at unload time. I'm leery of pestering for more information, but perhaps I do have some goodwill (fulfillment of an I'm-not-a-quack promise) I could trade on. I'll pester them for more information. I do not think Dr. Lobel's comments are contradictory, for what it's worth..! Kothog (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

separating bloop from fiction

Thanks for your recent edits. The only thing I wanted to say is that we don't have to say so much about the story, only that it was a place he described where a giant sea monster lives or awakens or whatever. Like, for example, do we need the name of the place, or is that a detail they can get at the link?

Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Conciseness is probably a better thing because there are in fact so few facts about it. Strange how pared-down this one has become compared to the massive expounding done on far less in other articles. It's tough to convey why it is that the story actually relates to the Bloop without giving a short synopsis of Cthulhu-the-monster. I try not to assume everyone has read it. I think, given the massive attention and linkages that people have made regarding the two, a bit extra (especially compared with the other questionable pieces) might have been helpful. Kothog (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I do not think the current list should be expanded into a prose paragraph or even changed, for the following reasons:

• Many other articles contain short, sentence-based lists including Cheshire Cat and Wikipedia's own Wikipedia in culture page. The information in those is presented in tabular format and includes timeline-like datestamps to help organise them into a consumable list. Therefore, lists of things, in sentence form, and separated by something other than straight English grammatical constructs, have good precedence.
• There are no chronological orderings which would be appropriate.
• The list is currently very small; however, each item is radically unrelated to the others in topic.
• Parts of the list are already in significant prose form.
• The section was mislabeled with an article-wide tag. Still, for the sake of effective communication, I will assume the editor who put it there meant it to apply just to that specific section.
• Expanding it into a prose paragraph (or four) would impede readability relative to the current list because none of the items are conceptually linked except by the fact they provide fictional explanations for the Bloop; thus, a paragraph would just be a free-form list of its own, with fewer boundaries and would be less concise.
• For these and other more minor reasons, I disagree that this section should be converted into prose. Eventually, perhaps the Bloop will warrant a whole new section for a lovely tabular list of cultural references with accompanying short, sentence-based explanations.

I am therefore removing the prose tag. Please, if you disagree with me, rather than reinstating the tag, convert the list into prose that is as accurate as the current list and also acceptable to you. Kothog (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I find your reasoning very convincing. The person who put the tag made no case for it, and merely said "prose please". These ideas are not really about the bloop but notable fiction in popular culture, and it seems to me that most articles do this with bulleted lists. Chrisrus (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy who put it there is crushingly prolific in Wikipedia and so I gave his opinion a lot of weight. But I just can't see how prose could do it better. Thank you for the vote of confidence, that's much appreciated. Kothog (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp and Bloop

Is it possible that, if Bloop is indeed animal in origin, that it was affected by the "Great Comet of 1997" Hale-Bopp? On March 22, 1997 the comet made it's closest approach to Earth. Does exist a recorded correlation between this comet's approaching and other animal behaviour? Maybe Bloop was in some kind of sleeping state for thousands if not millions of years and the comet somehow affected it's senses, waked it up for a while and in the end it fell asleep again. Or the animal lives so deep in the ocean that it never was heard before and it was allured by the comet's approach. I really think there could be a coherence of some sort between Bloop and Hale-Bopp. Both 1997, both at the same time... Anon 02:17 GMT