Understanding: Abductive Reasoning, Cumulative Arguments, and Sasquatch Vocalizations

[MikeZimmer]

There are lots of reports and recordings of sounds of great volume from some unknown creature with similarity over time and across places. Many times witnesses have reported hearing anomalous vocalizations. I look at the evidence.

 

Introduction: The Principles of Common Sense Reasoning and Abduction

Scientific and rational inquiry rely on multiple forms of reasoning, including deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Of these, abduction, first articulated systematically by Charles Sanders Peirce, is the method of inferring to the best explanation based on available evidence. It is not about certainty, but rather plausibility, allowing for tentative conclusions based on patterns of consistency and the absence of disconfirming evidence.

The Key Elements of Abductive Reasoning in Investigating Sasquatch Vocalizations

1. Collecting and examining evidence for plausibility – Looking at available data and determining its reliability.

2. Considering multiple "lines" or "threads" of evidence – Not relying on a single data point but seeing how different forms of evidence interrelate.

3. Building a plausible hypothesis based on the evidence – Identifying the most reasonable explanation given the cumulative data.

4. Examining competing hypotheses – Considering alternative explanations and determining if they better explain the data.

5. Assessing where and how evidence supports a hypothesis – Identifying points of consistency that reinforce the working theory.

6. Assessing where and how evidence contradicts a hypothesis – Seeking disconfirming data that may require modifying or rejecting a hypothesis.

7. Resolving contradictions – Not just deductive contradictions, but inconsistencies in the coherence of competing explanations.

8. Detecting formal and informal problems in reasoning – Identifying logical fallacies used in arguments both for and against the hypothesis.

9. Following the lines of evidence to plausible, tentative conclusions – Recognizing that strong conclusions require multiple converging lines of support.

These principles, though abstract, find direct application in real-world cases, including the study of unidentified vocalizations attributed to Sasquatch.

---

Applying Abductive Reasoning: The Case of Sasquatch Vocalizations

For decades, vocalizations attributed to Sasquatch have been recorded and reported. With the advent of cell phones and small digital recorders, the frequency and quality of recorded vocalizations have increased. Witnesses consistently describe the sounds as:

• Immense in volume, often shaking their bodies.

• Different from known animal calls.

• Occurring in remote areas, sometimes without human presence.

• Occasionally accompanied by other sounds, such as footsteps, tree knocks, or breaking branches.

The question becomes: What best explains these sounds? There are three competing hypotheses:

1. Fraudulent/Hoax Hypothesis – All reports and recordings are fabrications.

2. Known Animal Hypothesis – The sounds come from a species already identified.

3. Unknown Creature Hypothesis – The sounds originate from an unidentified biological source, possibly a large primate.

Each hypothesis must be tested against the available evidence to determine which one provides the most reasonable and coherent explanation.

---

1. The Structure of the Cumulative Argument

A cumulative argument is based on multiple, independent lines of evidence, which together strengthen the case for a given hypothesis. Unlike deductive arguments, which require absolute proof, cumulative arguments gain credibility through consistency, coherence, and absence of disconfirming evidence.

The foundational premise is simple:

• Recordings of Sasquatch vocalizations exist.

• They are independently attested.

• They have undergone analysis showing unique, unexplained patterns.

From this baseline, multiple independent lines of evidence add support.

1.1. Sonogram Analysis: Consistency Across Time and Distance

• Thinker Thunker, a researcher, compared recordings 2,300 miles apart and 50 years apart.

• The sonographic features are identical and do not match known human or animal vocal patterns.

• If genuine, this suggests a geographically widespread, persistent sound source.

1.2. Linguistic Evidence: "Samurai Chatter"

• R. Scott Nelson, a cryptologic linguist, studied Sasquatch vocalizations (notably Ron Moorhead’s Sierra Sounds).

• His analysis indicates:

  • Some recordings exhibit linguistic properties, including syntax and morphology.

  • The patterns are structured and non-random, unlike typical animal calls.

  • These patterns suggest a potential unknown form of communication.

If valid, this places Sasquatch vocalizations among a handful of species (humans, dolphins, some apes) capable of complex vocal exchange.

1.3. Reports of Multiple Communicating Entities

• Witnesses frequently report hearing multiple creatures interacting vocally.

• Recordings capture call-and-response exchanges.

• If these sounds are communicative, they indicate intentional vocal production.

1.4. The Sounds Do Not Match Any Known Animal

• Comparative studies against wolves, foxes, elk, bears, and primates have found no match.

• Some vocalizations include frequency ranges, duration, and volume beyond known species.

• If the sounds do not match an existing animal, then what is producing them?

1.5. The Volume and Physical Impact of the Sounds

• Witnesses consistently describe immense volume.

• Some sounds reportedly vibrate the human body, suggesting a massive lung capacity.

• This is physically beyond human capability, making hoaxing improbable.

1.6. Consistency Across Reports and Recordings

• Patterns of vocalization are consistent across:

  • Time (decades apart)

  • Geography (widespread locations)

  • Witnesses (independent observers)

• This suggests the same biological source rather than random anomalies.

---

2. Evaluating the Competing Hypotheses

2.1. Fraudulent/Hoax Hypothesis

• Some hoaxes exist, but dismissing all vocalizations as hoaxes requires:

  • A massive, long-term, coordinated deception.

  • The ability to fake sonograms across decades.

  • The ability to mimic structured linguistic elements.

This stretches plausibility past reason.

2.2. Known Animal Hypothesis

• No known species consistently matches the recordings.

• No biologist has identified a definitive source.

• The sounds persist despite extensive wildlife research.

If a known animal produced these calls, we should have identified it by now.

2.3. Unknown Creature Hypothesis

• The hypothesis that an unidentified primate is responsible is not inherently implausible.

• Uncharted regions exist, and new species continue to be discovered.

• This hypothesis best accounts for the data without introducing contradictions.

---

3. Examining Skeptical Counterarguments and Logical Fallacies

3.1. "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"

• The claim that all Sasquatch vocalizations are hoaxes is also extraordinary and requires proof.

• The recordings exist and are available for analysis.

• This argument shifts the burden of proof unfairly.

3.2. "Witnesses Are Unreliable"

• Human perception is fallible, but:

  • Independent, consistent reports across time and geography indicate a real phenomenon.

  • Dismissing all witness testimony is a sweeping generalization fallacy.

3.3. "Hoaxes Explain Everything"

• This assumes hoaxes without evidence.

• It fails to explain:

  • Sonographic consistency.

  • Linguistic structure.

  • Immense vocal volume.

3.4. "It’s Just Another Animal"

• This fails to identify a species matching the sounds.

• If the sounds belonged to a known species, biologists should have recognized them by now.

---

4. Conclusions: The Need for Further Investigation

The cumulative argument shows that:

• Skeptical dismissals often rely on flawed reasoning.

• The hoax hypothesis lacks credibility.

• The unknown species hypothesis best accounts for the data.

Without direct counter-evidence, outright rejection of the Sasquatch vocalization hypothesis is unscientific. The most reasonable position is continued investigation based on the best available evidence.

Videos

1 - Thinker Thunker: Ron Morehead's Legendary “Sierra Sounds Bigfoot Recordings” Has Finally Met Its Match

Analysis of sonographic similarities between recordings 2,300 miles apart and 40 years apart, suggesting a persistent, widespread biological source.
Watch on YouTube

---

2 - Sasquatch Sierra Sounds by Ron Morehead & Al Berry (HD)

The original 1970s recordings from the Sierra Nevada mountains, regarded as some of the most compelling Sasquatch vocalizations ever captured.

Watch on YouTube

---

3 - Bigfoot Language: Radical Translation of the Berry-Morehead Tapes - Scott Nelson

A cryptologic linguist’s analysis of the Sierra Sounds, concluding that the vocalizations exhibit linguistic properties consistent with structured communication.

Watch on YouTube

---

4 - The Best Bigfoot Sounds Recorded in Washington State | Salish Sasquatch

A compilation of nearly 50 years of Sasquatch vocal recordings from Washington State, featuring some of the most compelling audio evidence to date.

Watch on YouTube

---

 

These videos provide direct audio evidence supporting the cumulative argument regarding Sasquatch vocalizations, analyzed through sonograms, linguistic structure, and geographic distribution.

 

[Doug]

Very nice presentation and videos.

[NorCalWitness]

great video links. I had an experience this last summer where there was a massive tree fallings or rock falling sound but the weird part was it lasted much longer than a tree fall would last and there wasn't much of a difference between the start of the sound and the end part, where you would generally expect to hear a fall off in sound levels. It was quite interesting. I just laid still in my tent and I waited and was not disappointed. 10 minutes later I heard a 4 tone singing like sound like it was being played over a concert speaker. The song/call lasted more than 30 seconds. As I reflect on it, it was beautiful and it sounded like something was singing me a song. Video #4 has some very similar sounds in it to what I heard. Its nice to find a reference point. Thank you for sharing these.