Jump to content

A Ground-Breaking Study Of An Unknown Language From Sierra Sounds


Guest LittleFeat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why do they need to be trained in Behavioral Sciences JC? Jane Goodall had no degree. She was hired as a Secretary, but Louis Leakey realized she was a good observer due to her interest in animals and she had desire, and thus she proved herself to the world over the years. Others in our field are trying to prove themselves too but there aren't many Leakey's to put them under their wings. However individuals are trying to share their observations, their behavioral research, in many threads JC. Many also hold back some of their findings out of fear and I don't blame them. Still look around, there are plenty trying to solicit vocal responses, recordings, habituating, understanding, etc. I think a scientist might call that behavioral research and the same thing Goodall was doing. wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dancing, dancing, dancing.......

Is that all you are going to do here, PT. I have asked you repeatedly to answer only two questions and you dance around and never answer the questions. And we all know why. ;)

You are dancing so fast, you can't even remember the steps. :lol:

Sorry to bust your pretentious bubble, but I understand what Scott Nelson claims he is trying to do. I believe it is you that doesn't fully understand what it is that he is unable to do. Also, let me correct you, I know that bigfoot exists. I never said that they don't.

I said that it is unproven that the Sierra Sounds were made by a bigfoot. I can't disprove them and you can't prove them. Where does that leave ya? ;)

The Sierra Sounds were made and published to make money, because Moorehead, et al have never tried to utilize any scientific evaluation in trying to prove what made the sounds. He just set up a website to sell the recordings. ;)

In his book, "Big Footprints", Grover Krantz had this to say about the Sierra Sounds:

One of the most widely publicized sound recordings was supposedly made at a remote hunting camp in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California,the location of which was known to only the hunters who used it. They brought in another man who taped a long sequence of noises that were quite unlike any other reported sasquatch sounds. None of them claimed to have seen the creatures, but they did show me photographs of numerous tracks in the snow at the camp. These were some of the most obviously faked tracks that I have ever seen. The tape was analyzed by some university sound specialists who determined that a human voice could not have made them; they required a much longer vocal tract. A sasquatch investigator later asked one of these experts if a human could imitate the sound characteristics by simply cupping his hands around his mouth. The answer was yes. I do not know what these recordings actually represent,but given the circumstances they do not seem to merit any further investigation.

In my opinion, Scott Nelson is merely grandstanding in the bigfoot community. He didn't have to publicly get involved in the evaluation of the Sierra Sounds. He could have done it privately, and merely contacted different groups and forums for solicitation of other recordings. He put himself out in front before he ever had anything worthwhile to publish.

You can't make much money off of it if you keep it all private. ;)

That's my opinion.

You can call your research "progressive research" if you want to. I will just call it "romantic research", and be done with it.

I am through with this dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was predictable. The standard "habituation" answers. "I know things, but I'm not sharing, " or "except what I say without question, but I have no evidence to verify it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dancing, dancing, dancing.......

Is that all you are going to do here, PT. I have asked you repeatedly to answer only two questions and you dance around and never answer the questions. And we all know why. ;)

You are dancing so fast, you can't even remember the steps. :lol:

Sorry to bust your pretentious bubble, but I understand what Scott Nelson claims he is trying to do. I believe it is you that doesn't fully understand what it is that he is unable to do. Also, let me correct you, I know that bigfoot exists. I never said that they don't.

I said that it is unproven that the Sierra Sounds were made by a bigfoot. I can't disprove them and you can't prove them. Where does that leave ya? ;)

The Sierra Sounds were made and published to make money, because Moorehead, et al have never tried to utilize any scientific evaluation in trying to prove what made the sounds. He just set up a website to sell the recordings. ;)

In his book, "Big Footprints", Grover Krantz had this to say about the Sierra Sounds:

In my opinion, Scott Nelson is merely grandstanding in the bigfoot community. He didn't have to publicly get involved in the evaluation of the Sierra Sounds. He could have done it privately, and merely contacted different groups and forums for solicitation of other recordings. He put himself out in front before he ever had anything worthwhile to publish.

You can't make much money off of it if you keep it all private. ;)

That's my opinion.

You can call your research "progressive research" if you want to. I will just call it "romantic research", and be done with it.

I am through with this dance.

Krantz also said that he saw no reason to consider bigfoot anything other than Gigantopithecus Blacki, so he wasn't without a bias where speech sounds were concerned.;) I'm curious, what is Nelson selling? Also, what is romantic about the study of speech sounds? How is it romantic that we evolved to speak and that another primate could do the same? Do you know of any scientists that "want" to study the sierra sounds? The kind of work that you would want done with them doesn't get done for free you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dancing, dancing, dancing.......

Is that all you are going to do here, PT. I have asked you repeatedly to answer only two questions and you dance around and never answer the questions. And we all know why. ;)

You are dancing so fast, you can't even remember the steps. :lol:

Sorry to bust your pretentious bubble, but I understand what Scott Nelson claims he is trying to do. I believe it is you that doesn't fully understand what it is that he is unable to do. Also, let me correct you, I know that bigfoot exists. I never said that they don't.

I said that it is unproven that the Sierra Sounds were made by a bigfoot. I can't disprove them and you can't prove them. Where does that leave ya? ;)

The Sierra Sounds were made and published to make money, because Moorehead, et al have never tried to utilize any scientific evaluation in trying to prove what made the sounds. He just set up a website to sell the recordings. ;)

In his book, "Big Footprints", Grover Krantz had this to say about the Sierra Sounds:

In my opinion, Scott Nelson is merely grandstanding in the bigfoot community. He didn't have to publicly get involved in the evaluation of the Sierra Sounds. He could have done it privately, and merely contacted different groups and forums for solicitation of other recordings. He put himself out in front before he ever had anything worthwhile to publish.

You can't make much money off of it if you keep it all private. ;)

That's my opinion.

You can call your research "progressive research" if you want to. I will just call it "romantic research", and be done with it.

I am through with this dance.

Well said. As always follow the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dancing, dancing, dancing.......

Is that all you are going to do here, PT. I have asked you repeatedly to answer only two questions and you dance around and never answer the questions. And we all know why. ;)

"WE ALL KNOW WHY?" LOL I love it. And just what do you know Splash? That bigfoot is an ape because he looked like one to you? You have clearly been around the bigfoot forums so I'm not surprised by the sorry attempts at innuendo. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't fit in that mold you'd like to put me in. I've given answers that are satisfactory to the larger issue, answers you simply can't accept.

You are dancing so fast, you can't even remember the steps. :lol:

LOL, that's just too funny. I can't stop laughing from your cleverness Splash.

Sorry to bust your pretentious bubble, but I understand what Scott Nelson claims he is trying to do. I believe it is you that doesn't fully understand what it is that he is unable to do. Also, let me correct you, I know that bigfoot exists. I never said that they don't.

Frankly Splash, you don't seem to indicate that you actually understand what Nelson is doing when you state he's only doing it for the money. See the contradiction? Is it actually your own "pretentious bubble" that seems to have sprung a leak? And where did I say you didn't know that bigfoot exists Splash? I've acknowledged that a few times, although I do have trouble understanding your mindset. That first sentence was to JC due to his repeated reference of wanting them proven. PLEASE RE-READ. The second part was directed to you with respect to the fact that many researchers who know bigfoot exists, do believe Moorehead's recordings and Nelson's work is valid as well. Can you accept that some people actually respect the findings and assessments of other researchers? Regardless, the point was that many researchers out there believe their work has much more value then you and a small vocal minority does. I'm sorry you remain in the ideological past with respect valuing different people's work. Oh and I apologize if you think I'm doing the cha cha for ya too. :)

I said that it is unproven that the Sierra Sounds were made by a bigfoot. I can't disprove them and you can't prove them. Where does that leave ya? ;)

We agree on the former two sentences, but I'm not the person being negative here discounting Nelson's work. At least I am able to recognize that his work product is fresh and to proceed on a positive premise that we can someday learn one more piece of the puzzle about the species from his work. You are welcome to reside in closed mindedness, just realize that most people in the field probably don't agree with you.

The Sierra Sounds were made and published to make money, because Moorehead, et al have never tried to utilize any scientific evaluation in trying to prove what made the sounds. He just set up a website to sell the recordings. ;)

And there you go. You are so certain of this Splash? Based on what evidence? Whooptidoo if Moorehead is selling the recordings too. Is that your proof? And what is wrong with funding expenses and field work, and how much did he have to pay Jonathan Frakes just to narrate? And again, just how is Nelson making money Splash? Please explain! By sending his paper to bigfoot groups? By having his travel and hotel expenses paid for at a few conferences he's attended? You might want to have more evidence before making such claims about people's motives. Seems kinda rude making such unsubstantiated allegations.

In his book, "Big Footprints", Grover Krantz had this to say about the Sierra Sounds:

Quote

"One of the most widely publicized sound recordings was supposedly made at a remote hunting camp in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California,the location of which was known to only the hunters who used it. They brought in another man who taped a long sequence of noises that were quite unlike any other reported sasquatch sounds. None of them claimed to have seen the creatures, but they did show me photographs of numerous tracks in the snow at the camp. These were some of the most obviously faked tracks that I have ever seen. The tape was analyzed by some university sound specialists who determined that a human voice could not have made them; they required a much longer vocal tract. A sasquatch investigator later asked one of these experts if a human could imitate the sound characteristics by simply cupping his hands around his mouth. The answer was yes. I do not know what these recordings actually represent, but given the circumstances they do not seem to merit any further investigation."

Yeah photographs have been extremely reliable for determining the authenticity of footprints Splash. tongue.gif That's what Krantz went by right? Photographs? At least I've spoken with Dr. Krantz, enough to know he didn't know all the answers either. Maybe even he discounted the track photos because he couldn't fathom them having language? Maybe because he too was blindly convinced they were Giganto and wasn't willing to budge?

In my opinion, Scott Nelson is merely grandstanding in the bigfoot community. He didn't have to publicly get involved in the evaluation of the Sierra Sounds. He could have done it privately, and merely contacted different groups and forums for solicitation of other recordings. He put himself out in front before he ever had anything worthwhile to publish.

You can't make much money off of it if you keep it all private. ;)

That's my opinion.

Wow, you don't leave much room for giving Nelson (and probably many others), any benefit do you? "He could have done it privately.." ? LOL, that seems a bit rash. No Splash, he chose to be up front about his work. You must criticize that too? He wanted others who have recordings to understand what he's doing so they would feel confident when contacting him. How many times is that explanation necessary? What really is bothering you Splash? Is it because you fear that language would mean bigfoot was closer to human? That they may be more sentient then the ape you are so convinced them to be? Or that you just won't accept that anyone can actually learn more about bigfoot then you?

You can call your research "progressive research" if you want to. I will just call it "romantic research", and be done with it.

I am through with this dance.

At least its comforting to know that it doesn't matter to the majority of serious researchers in the field how you view Nelson, or his work. Your discounting he and his work is what is actually juxtaposed to the spirit of the thread. Here I am positively supporting them, and yet you want to make ME the bad guy when you are the one arguing the positive original intent of the thread? lol That's funny. I enjoyed the chat.

That was predictable. The standard "habituation" answers. "I know things, but I'm not sharing, " or "except what I say without question, but I have no evidence to verify it."

That is rich JC. LOL How do you expect to find any answers? You debate the way a scoftic would. Ask some of your trusted friends their honest impression of your own research ideas and opinions.

QUOTE

By “scoftic†someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificant. Scofticism is thus fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness. The reasonable pose is “show me the evidence.†The “fine print†is all the qualifiers, and all the hidden assumptions and misdirections.

A nutshell definition of scofticism would be “scientism in disguise,†although that’s not quite accurate….Another thumbnail definition is “a cranky skeptic.â€

Roger Knights

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pragmatic Theorist said: That is rich JC. LOL How do you expect to find any answers? You debate the way a scoftic would. Ask some of your trusted friends their honest impression of your own research ideas and opinions.

You just don't get it. I ask my friends for their opinions all the time and they have no problem telling me when I am FOS. What I don't do is get on the internet and make wild claims about recordings of deciphering gibberish that may or may not be Bigfoot in the first place. I don't get on the internet with claims about habituation of Bigfoot. You mistake me for someone who feels a need to listen to that nonsense to keep belief.

I hopefully expect to find answers with REAL evidence and proper methods of documentation to the best of my ability. In fact I am on my way to the Blue Ridge Mountains for 4 days, talk to you next Tuesday.

Scoftic...I like that word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't do is get on the internet and make wild claims about recordings of deciphering gibberish that may or may not be Bigfoot in the first place.

I want to address the issue of the study of these sounds. I applaud anyone with pertinent professional background who endeavors to study alledged bigfoot or anomalous evidence in order to provide more definitive answers, so long as it is in accordance with established standards within their particular field of expertise. As a matter of professionalism, I do not applaud dismissal of these peoples work by nonqualified peers based solely on the fact that the source of the evidence is unproven. Focus your critique on the methods used, not the conclusion. Proof is born from the study of evidence, and favors no foredrawn conclusion.

Whether anyone here likes it or not, most people will be taking someone elses word that the proof really is proof.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to address the issue of the study of these sounds. I applaud anyone with pertinent professional background who endeavors to study alledged bigfoot or anomalous evidence in order to provide more definitive answers, so long as it is in accordance with established standards within their particular field of expertise. As a matter of professionalism, I do not applaud dismissal of these peoples work by nonqualified peers based solely on the fact that the source of the evidence is unproven. Focus your critique on the methods used, not the conclusion. Proof is born from the study of evidence, and favors no foredrawn conclusion.

Whether anyone here likes it or not, most people will be taking someone elses word that the proof really is proof.:D

If the source material is unproven, then the results of the study cannot be anything other then the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steering Committee
BFF Donor

If the source material is unproven, then the results of the study cannot be anything other then the same.

My zero to your power of two equals nothing at all.

Minstrel in the Gallery, Jethro Tull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LittleFeat

Thank you all for your ideas and information regarding Dr. Nelson's study of the Sierra Sounds tapes. I was wondering what was going on with the project and I appreciate your responses. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LittleFeat,

A lot of disinformation was posted in this thread by those who I assume are not familiar with Nelson's work or, if they've heard him speak, didn't listen very well.

Here's the blurb Scott Nelson wrote about himself for next spring's OR Sasquatch Symposium:

Scott Nelson: Has spent twelve years on faculty teaching in the arena of philosophy and languages at Wentworth College. He has also been on faculty teaching Russian, Persian, and Spanish as well several philosophy and religion courses.

Nelson is retired U.S. Navy Cryptologic Technician Interpreter (Crypto-Linguist), and he worked for Naval Intelligence, logging thousands of hours of collection and transcription of voice communications.

Nelson is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center of Monterey, California (Russian and Spanish) and .U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School at Naval Security Group Detachment (NSGD), of San Angelo, Texas (Russian and Spanish).

He is also the author of The Characteristics of Human Language, a paper that lists the evidence of an unknown language being used during that amazing day in the high Sierra's.

Scott has also concluded after hundreds of hours reviewing the Sierra Sounds that

1. DEFINITELY NOT HUMAN

Due to hours of listening and beyond human abilty to make. The tempo is too fast and the conversation too quick almost twice as fast as humans

2. DEFINITELY DETECTED LANGUAGE

Isolated 41 different phonemes combined to make morphemems (syllables). There were emoted sounds of intimidation and negation. Too many grammatical keys to be random.

3. TAPES/RECORDINGS NOT FAKE

No deception took place. This guy was trained how to detect the latest Russian deception technology. A faked recording back in 1974 would have been easy to detect.

No conclusion of it being bigfoot language (although he does hypothesize that's what it is). No claim of deciphering the unknown language.

Pteronarcyd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • Researcher A
BFF Patron

Splash,

I heard Nelson's presentation at OSS and thought it the most interesting of the presentations made over the two days in many ways.

First, Nelson is not, as I recall, deciphering an unknown language. He is merely transcribing it and setting standards for transcription so that it might be deciphered and translated in the future.

I believe Nelson's most striking conclusions were that the unknown, purportedly bigfoot, sounds were (1) a language, and (2) inhuman. While Nelson cannot decipher the sounds, his assessment is that the sounds constitute on unknown language. He has shared the recordings with linguists who have agreed with him. As I recall, he bases his conclusion that the language is inhuman on the fact that the sounds are spoken at a rate much faster than any known normal human language. He has to slow the recordings down considerably to transcribe them.

Belittling Nelson for deciphering an unknown language is nothing more than yet another strawman being slayed at the BFFs.

Anyone who believes the sounds to be of human origin is welcome to attempt to duplicate the sounds with a human voice -- make that voices, as more than one voice at a time is heard on samuri chatter recordings. I would welcome a link to an unaltered recording of any successful attempt being posted at the BFFs, alongside the original samuri chatter recordings. My guess is, like the obvious Patty suit than no one has been able to reproduce, despite the benefits of decades of technology advances, no one will be able to duplicate the sounds, at original speed, that Nelson is transcribing.

Pteronarcyd

I plused this one a while back, and one would plus it again if allowed. If Nelson can make something out of Sierra Sounds I have to think there is "some" inherent value to the body of recordings on the Sierra Sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...