Jump to content

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


Guest LittleFeat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Splash,

It's all good. PT said something and I typed before I breathed. Spazmo was right, I was out of line. Thanks for understanding my frustration though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now back to Mr. Nelson and his work. He seems very good at what he does and I respect his skills at translating. But the foundation of this argument is that it is a Bigfoot(s) on the Sierra sound recordings he is translating. It may very well be Bigfoot. But no one knows for sure. His finds may be very interesting to those who believe, but it is in no way hard evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I stirred something up, it wasn't my intent.

Thanks JC, I appreciate your post. But I wasn't trying to say you were out of line.

I agree with all of you, and was hoping to calm things down a bit, that's all.

No hard feelings.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Splash,

I just had a thought as you mention the ones you came in contact with looking like an Ape. And of course this difference in appearance by different witnesses has been referenced for decades.

I haven't read the book Enoch, but I was at the presentation. There was mention of TWO DIFFERENT TYPES of bigfoot according to Mike. One type looked human and the other like ape.

That may WELL be the cause of so much disagreement that plagues this field. Can you agree?

So in that context, I too would admit my wrong in labeling the Ape Crowd, because maybe there two subspecies or races? Someday, both camps might have to accept something that goes counter to their own direct (ape or human) experiences. Of course this only complicates the study of something we have such a hard time grasping as it is. What you raise now does bring the question home for me.

What do you think? Could this be the answer as to why we have two different camps on this issue? It didn't begin with my post, it existed long before. But 'human' just happened to be my experiences. Now I will move forward trying to further understand this dilemma. So again, what do you think?

But why is it so difficult to believe that some people may know more then others in this field? Why should this field be any different then any other? Experience brings added knowledge, I don't care what field that is. And just as this realization has now surfaced about their possible differences in that respect, these and other differences can be further discerned with open dialogue.

But why give such little credence to Scott Nelson's research, when he has significant credentials with the US Military in deciphering phonetics? But may I can understand that too, if you see them as a giant ape, then that would explain why you might feel he isn't on the right track either. Communication Splash may ultimately be the thread that pulls it all together. It has worked to unite just about every other human race on the planet. Maybe our goal will ultimately become focusing on the human like ones to contact?

What do you think Splash?

Hopefully this is in line with the Sierra Sounds thread too given it may help them isolate different dialects.

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Nelson is a retired Navy Crypto-Linguist. Some say that gives him the expertise to decipher a bigfoot language. I say that since the Sierra Sounds haven't been proven to be made by a bigfoot creature, and could very well have been made by a human, just making up a bunch of sounds, then I don't believe his work is worth much. IMHO

I am of the mind that there may be regional differences, in the various descriptions of bigfoot creatures, to indicate that there may be different sub-species, or different animals altogether.

For instance, I believe Patty was a sasquatch. But, Patty doesn't look like any of the creatures I have seen.

I believe that some people have more experience with these creatures. I do not believe more experience means more knowledge.

I am, of course, a bigfoot proponent. I am not a bigfoot romantic. I usually take, with a grain of salt, another member's statements that gives them some hidden or insightful knowledge of these creatures that the rest of us can't or aren't supposed to have because we don't have the proper respect or attitude with these creatures.

I do not give these creatures some special or paranormal ability that any other animal on this earth does not have.

I do not think these creatures are dangerous or are willing to hurt a human, likewise, I do believe in their aggressive nature and mannerisms to frighten humans to leave their area of habitation.

That's what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using phonetics, Scott is deciphering the vowels and syllables of what Moorehead and his partner recorded a few decades ago. A collaboration is a rare thing in this field. Phonetics are one of the same tools we have used to decipher/understand dozens of languages and codes. Phonetics are also what we use to teach to read and write today. Its the repeating patterns that provide structure in understanding. They are trying to work with other recordings as well to further grow these list of patterns. But I suppose if you can't accept Moorhead's initial field research & recordings as actually being from a sasquatch, I can understand why you wouldn't give the results of Nelson's work their full worth either.

So where does that leave all the dozens/hundreds of researchers whose word and research thoroughness are what any field must rely on? That is how research is conducted. Do we summarily discount everyone's claim of their documented recordings because we can't fact check every step they make? We won't get very far if that becomes the norm for what really is a young field we have here. And yes, a large portion of any kind of research is subjective analysis based on personal observation. Jane Goodall's conclusions are based on HER interpretation of what she experienced. All scientists and researchers have this process for which they derive their conclusions. What is essentially behavioral research is different then quantitative studies where test tube measurements can be repeated using different elements and documented for each result based on a chemical breakdown.

And of course, it is perfectly fine for anyone to take another person's claims with a grain of salt. But some may actually have insights others don't. There are a number of people I wish I could learn more about bigfoot from because of their experiences. That is how I learn more too. How much you decide to consider truth is entirely up to you for your own ingestion of course. So yes, what you believe is yours to utilize how it best enables you to grow personally. My personal point of view, is to remain open minded and assess things beyond a cursory look simply because an idea sounds unsettling to my own belief system. My brain hasn't fallen out yet.

I posted what I did above to you because I had hoped to reach an important common ground that would enable a new look at an old perspective. I even admitted what could be a long held error on my part with respect to how these two different perspectives of what Sasquatch is seen as (ape or early human), which may ultimately resolve one of the big two-camp issues within Sasquatch Research. Maybe your not the person to contemplate this new idea that could actually bring camps together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi PT-

I think your thoughts are well thought out and presented.

While I have to admit that the Sierra Sounds have not been proven to have come from a Sasquatch, I also see the value in researching them anyway. The way I see it is that all of this work might someday be validated or discarded if the mystery gets solved, and it would be a shame to dismiss it now only to find out later that it had more value than originally thought. And if BF is proven to be real, then all of this work instantly becomes supporting evidence and very valuable data.

In fairness, I also have to point out that these recordings could be from a human uttering gibberish. Even gibberish has phonetic patterns, and the patterns of gibberish will also vary with different languages. So there's the very real possibility that Nelson's work will amount to nothing.

But just because that's a possibility doesn't mean the project should be discarded. If Nelson is successful AND the proof of BF comes, then we might be a lot closer to communicating with them when the time comes. I certainly do not think it's a wasted effort.

Also worth pointing out: a Crypto-linguist is not one trained in the linguistics of cryptozoology. The "crypto" in this case refers to codes, cyphers and intelligence/counter intelligence as well as foreign dialects. Not that anyone thought he was a cryptozoological linguist, but just in case anyone did...:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Spazmo,

I understand how some have trouble with believing those vocalizations actually came from a Sasquatch, but welcome to bigfooting right? lol

Have a good night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also worth pointing out: a Crypto-linguist is not one trained in the linguistics of cryptozoology. The "crypto" in this case refers to codes, cyphers and intelligence/counter intelligence as well as foreign dialects. Not that anyone thought he was a cryptozoological linguist, but just in case anyone did...:P

For the OP: As Spazmo pointed out, a Crypto-linguist deals with "foreign dialects" from known languages. It doesn't mean they can decipher gibberish.

For PT: Jane Goodall's studies are over a long period with a known species. She shares her research with other scientists that are studying the same known species.

Bigfoot proponents need to stop using Jane Goodall and her research as a comparison with what bigfoot "researchers" are doing. It is not the same and never will be until we actually find the creatures and actually spend time with them doing legitimate, scientific research.

And don't throw the folks that claim to be habituating them in the mix. Until those folks can show proof that they are actually interacting with these creatures, their accounts are nothing more than stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Nelson is a retired Navy Crypto-Linguist. Some say that gives him the expertise to decipher a bigfoot language.

And some (me, for instance) say that being a Navy Crypto-Linguist doesn't qualify him for diddly-squatch when it comes to bigfoot language.

RayG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Splash, the point of raising Goodall in the context I did was to iterate that we trust HER INTERPRETATION of HER research. Yeah she shares her research, but guess what, so are those in this field. Are they not? Goodall also wasn't a scientist when she started, she was hired as a secretary but Leakey saw her potential and enthusiasm.

Our present situation with bigfoot is that overall, science doesn't believe they exist yet. So we must work with whatever resources we have, and like it or not, its the layperson who is breaking ground. and its the internet where he/she find themselves sharing their findings. The world has grown since Leakey first began.

So why shouldn't those who claim to be habituating them be thrown into the mix? Like it or not, that consistently repeating group is a big part of the nature of the mystery. Sorry, its you who have to deny what experiences you haven't shared. :(

And why should bigfoot researchers stop using Jane Goodall and her research as a comparison? She HAS advocated more then one bigfoot researcher's efforts. Not to mention, the very element you are having a hard time accepting 'habituation', is the very method that Jane Goodall and the other two of Leakey's Angels had utilized. The difference now is in part that we are dealing with a species that can't be isolated the same way as chimps and gorillas were. Why? Well, well guess what, welcome to the mystery. And because we continually find ourselves not being able to prove their existence, maybe its time to open up to some new possibilities to explain. You may walk on your path and figure that out how you wish of course. Others can proceed with openly exploring these intangible, even controversial ideas. I guess we shall see who reaches the finish line first.

I'd also like to amend my above realization about the existence of the two camps (ape vs human), which existed long before I ever pointed it out. Just because they may look like an ape, doesn't mean they are. Likewise I will say that just because the other side may look human, doesn't mean they are. But it will be the DNA and their behavior that provides that answer. And so just because the face of a bigfoot has characteristics that make it look one way, I know that facial characteristics aren't who someone is. Their ape like appearance may be caused by something so basic a race. Most people are taught to recognize this growing up, it is part of how we learn to not discriminate based on appearances. The same point can be made about them being hairy, that doesn't automatically constitute ape either. It is we who have the recessed gene that prevents most of us anyhow, from being equally hairy. We still have a comparable number of hair follicles on our bodies however.

So with my prior acknowledgment that there could be two types, well I will attach a caveat to that and pose the possibility that people who have seen what looks apelike, may be relying on outward appearance more then they should. Cause as it would seem, and that they are just as intelligent as the human faced versions, or we would have proven them instead. All this would be significant to the language topic as well because one of the future tasks may be having to decipher languages from different races or kinds of bigfoot.

Ray, have you ever REALLY attempted to understand his work? What qualifies you to discount his ability to use his skills at deciphering the many specific elements of their language? And if they are indeed early human, even more so, why would a crypto-linguist not be able to begin finding patterns and other components of speech? There is a lot more then cracking code that goes into the field. They have to be educated in the basics of speech of language to find these patterns.

I suspect many nay-sayers really haven't taken the time to truly understand his work. Guess what, it may require more then just reading his paper too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Sierra Sounds" are either of human origin or some other unknown creature capable of making sounds that are reminiscent of language. If Scott Nelson, irrespective of his credentials, can convincingly show that the sounds are indeed a language and his work can be verified by others, would that not suggest that a human was not the author of the sounds as it is unlikely they would create and become fluent in a previously unknown language to perpetrate a hoax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Sierra Sounds" are either of human origin or some other unknown creature capable of making sounds that are reminiscent of language. If Scott Nelson, irrespective of his credentials, can convincingly show that the sounds are indeed a language and his work can be verified by others, would that not suggest that a human was not the author of the sounds as it is unlikely they would create and become fluent in a previously unknown language to perpetrate a hoax?

Absolutely not. Humans do lots of strange things for profit. Not saying that is the case here, but stranger things have happened in Bigfootry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, have you ever REALLY attempted to understand his work?

PT, what do you think being a crypto-linguist implies? What experience do you have with cyrpto-linguists?

What qualifies you to discount his ability to use his skills at deciphering the many specific elements of their language?

I've actually worked a crypto-linguist position for the military, you? I spent 9 years working in close proximity to 'crypto-linguists', you?

And if they are indeed early human, even more so, why would a crypto-linguist not be able to begin finding patterns and other components of speech? There is a lot more then cracking code that goes into the field. They have to be educated in the basics of speech of language to find these patterns.

Because a crypto-linguist is trained to decipher/translate one specific language it doesn't mean they have special abilities to decipher/translate another. A crypto-linguist isn't 'cracking code', they are intercepting/translating the language in which they have been trained. From what you've posted, I have to conclude that you know very little about crypto-linguists.

I suspect many nay-sayers really haven't taken the time to truly understand his work. Guess what, it may require more then just reading his paper too.

I suspect you are impressed by his usage of the term 'crypto-linguist' as though that gives him special abilities. It does not, and I remain quite unimpressed by his claims.

RayG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...