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

[Guest]

Excuse me, but exactly what is it you expect the Admin and Mods of a Bigfoot forum to do about Ray's actions regarding the submission of Mr. Nelson's work? It had nothing to do with his behavior on this forum.

Well John, what they decide to do within their purview, will be their decision I suppose and in context to how the forum now is different from its prior self which might have accepted it. I have high hopes that the new BFF is different. Sure hey can't do anything about his submission, I never expected that, but he sure used THIS forum to promote his inappropriate actions. So in that context, the Admins have a reasonable consideration of how much they condone such actions or not. Frankly I don't see how you can say 'it had nothing to do with his behavior on this forum'? His actions were because of his posts on this forum.

You also seem to take a lot of stock in a person's presentation at a Bigfoot Conference. Was the OSS your first conference? It seems to have left quite an impression.

John, I am not an obsessed researcher like some. It's been over 30 years since I had my first encounter and I've had many. I don't need to go to conferences to get my fill or to understand. In fact, I only attended and participated as a presenter at OSS because it was in my home town and I got to know the organizer beforehand. There have been other events in the NW over the years, but by choice I haven't gotten involved in what seems a very immature field overall. As I've explained many times, it is only in the last 3 years that I even decided to actively research the source of phenomenon that I had experienced many times without having to go to any conference.

And as for discussion of language, yeah, THAT is something that impresses me. My interest in animal has ALWAYS been about behavior, and language is a key component in that. I even once promoted fish behavior as an important research goal in the proposed development of a fresh water interpretive facility. I guess you don't care about language either, just like you don't you care 'what' they are. Your looking for answers John but you're not allowing yourself to consider avenues that you might afford them for attaining those answers. You're way too short on patience too. But its Ray's cheap shot we're talking about here now, so I'll stay focused if you can.

[Guest]

Here is how I attempted to edit my last paragraph so as to be more concise but edit time timed out before I was finished.

And as for discussion of language, yeah, THAT is something that impresses me. My interest in animals has ALWAYS been about behavior, and language is a key component in that with respect to sasquatch. I once promoted fish behavior as an important research goal in the proposed development of a fresh water interpretive facility here in Oregon. I guess you don't care about language though, just like you don't you care about 'what' they are. Your looking for answers John but you're not allowing yourself to consider avenues that might allow you to get to those answers. You're way short on patience when people propose such possibilities. Maybe Sasquatch haunts your dreams because you don't want to care about understanding them? But its Ray's cheap shot we're talking about here now, so I'll stay focused if you can.

[Guest]

PragmaticTheorist said:

Well John, what they decide to do within their purview, will be their decision I suppose and in context to how the forum now is different from its prior self which might have accepted it. I have high hopes that the new BFF is different. Sure hey can't do anything about his submission, I never expected that, but he sure used THIS forum to promote his inappropriate actions. So in that context, the Admins have a reasonable consideration of how much they condone such actions or not. Frankly I don't see how you can say 'it had nothing to do with his behavior on this forum'? His actions were because of his posts on this forum.

There is nothing for the Staff of this forum to address in this matter. What a member does and says outside of this forum is not our business. We are only concerned with what a member says and does, while on this forum. And so far, RayG has complied with the rules of this forum.

I don't see where RayG used this forum to promote his inappropriate actions. Scott Nelson didn't make his Bigfoot Phonetic Alphabet available on this forum. Please show me where Mr. Nelson posted his phonetic alphabet here or where he even discussed it here.

I have high hopes that the new BFF is different.

I had high hopes it would be too, I just wish some others felt the same way. Frankly, I am getting tired of hearing people express their disappointment in the "new BFF". I usually find that the one's with the disappointment are the ones causing it.

[Guest]

Does that mean that you condone the actions of RayG, Splash? He promoted his actions HERE. You do see the distinction right?

How this topic evolves I'm sure will be of interest to many professionals who will question where it is or isn't safe to share their findings. Haven't even you exclaimed how important it is to convince science to research this mystery? Well, why would they under the rules of conduct you would endorse? Why would ANY scientist RISK subjecting his work to a field where anything goes as far as decency and professionalism?

There's more than one layer to the concept of what is 'responsible' in any field.

Edited November 28, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

If you go back and read RayG's statement he say's this:

Why not, he asks that his conclusions be "published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely". There seems to be no point in publishing his conclusions on bigfoot websites, how many other linguists would you expect to find there, so as requested, I've taken the liberty of forwarding his claims/conclusions to the Linguistic Society of America, a professional society for linguists, as well as the LINGUIST list, a web site/mailing list to enable professional communication and networking between the world-wide community of linguists, to get their thoughts and comments.

Ray merely took what Mr. Nelson asked on his website and forwarded it to a couple of groups that could offer an opinion.

I don't see where RayG violated Mr. Nelson's intentions concerning the distribution of his work.

Also, RayG merely informed you (and anyone reading this thread) of his actions outside of this forum. I wouldn't go to the extent of saying he was "promoting" his actions here.

Haven't even you exclaimed how important it is to convince science to research this mystery?

I don't think I have "exclaimed" it, but I have on occasion said that we need to give the scientific community something to work with. I don't believe Mr. Nelson is doing that.

[Guest]

Then why should any scientist ever trust a field that can't distinguish proper decorum? Why would a scientist ever offer a sample of their findings to this field when they must fear such retributions? Why do you think Jane Goodall backed off of her support of the field? Fear of ridicule from a field that was not yet ready. Someone leaked her interest in the subject to her peers Splash. I wonder just how many others have been in the same boat that this field didn't realize because of its overall immaturity as a body?

This field is actually the one that needs to recognize that science has their formal processes. If we want to solicit the interest of science, we kinda have to abide by the steps they use. Submitting a paper to an assembly of a specific representative's peers that wasn't even prepared in any way for its introduction, is nothing short of 'poisoning the well' as Indiefoot put it, and not how to accomplish anything positive.

This field can indeed be its own worst enemy.

Edited November 28, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest Spazmo]

Hi PT-

I'd like to make a couple of comments about this, and I hope I don't make you any angrier than you already are. If so, please allow me to apologize in advance as furthering a bad situation is not my goal.

Splash is right, even though Ray said what he allegedly did while he was here, his (alleged) actions occurred well outside of this forum and it's rules. And we can't even verify that Ray did what he said he did. I'm not saying that you aren't entitled to be upset, but by asking that the forum staff do something about it puts them in a very touchy position.

Since there is no "paper" to submit, I would surmise that Ray simply directed members of those linguistic groups to Mr. Nelson's posted work so far. Those people may already be aware of his work, or they may not. Either way, if they review it they will likely see that it is "not yet ready for primetime", so to speak. And if they are reviewing work that Mr. Nelson has available on the internet, then there is no reason to think Ray has caused disclosure of anything sensitive. There may very well not be any sort of damage or embarrassment involved.

If I were to guess (something I do a lot, and with pretty good results), I would guess that Ray sent a link to Mr. Nelson's website and possibly a message asking for professional opinions. I seriously doubt that Ray would intentionally attempt to "torpedo" Mr. Nelson's work, regardless of how he feels about it.

I know Ray well enough to know that he'll eventually clarify this for all of us. Yes, he wears his moniker like a badge of courage (you know the one, it shows up under his avatar, or at least it used to on the old BFF).

Let's see where this situation leads. The Forum Staff is following along closely, and trust me when I tell you that if Ray (or anyone else) gets out of hand and/or violates the rules, our Staff will take the appropriate action. I've got 100% confidence in our Staff and hope that soon everyone will feel the same way I do about them.

Let's all take a deep breath and try to see things from all perspectives.

[Guest]

I respect your role here Spazmo as you've shown yourself as someone who is level headed. But I ask, if BFF doesn't eventually admonish his actions, if its true, why would any scientist risk sharing their interim work here ever again?

When a field grows, tough decisions come along that test what it grows into. Assuming RayG did what he claims, with very few options for his reasons in doing so plausible, then I believe one of those growth tests sits before this forum. The question becomes whether other scientists can trust this field at all because of reckless inconsiderate elements within?

Let's see, how many people can we 'out' who have professional lives? How many scientists can this field embarrass when they lend their interest and profession? You realize of course I'm not directing the sarcasm at you Spazmo, but at the growth issues this field seems to continually face and can't address because it is so fragmented with juxtaposed agendas.

RayG did recognize above in post #36 that it was Scott Nelson's decision as to whether he should submit it to those entities. The subsequent decision he claims to have made, were based on the discussions that took place here, AT BFF. I don't see how BFF can just ignore some role, and thus as things do play out, eventually find reason for not condoning, and possibly even admonishment as well. It took place because of and as a result of discussions here AT BFF.

RayG says:

If Mr. Nelson wants someone to academically approve of his work, then maybe he should submit it to the Linguistic Society of America, or other gatherings of linguists, for starters.

Nelson's paper is available as a standalone document yes. I believe a link to it was on the old forum as well. Yes it was available for public, but there is a proper decorum that Ray chose to sidetrack for his personal reasons. Whichever method Ray may have used to submit it, seems irrelevant as compared to why he did it and that he used THIS platform to announce and further it.

Yes, there is much more at stake in this matter then is being appreciated.

OK, now for a deep breath. lol

Edited November 28, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[Huntster]

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.

And (yet again) it has been pointed out that there is no proof that the Sierra Sounds are "bigfoot language".

However, a crypto-linguist may very well be able to come to some understanding about what he is hearing, whether it came from a sasquatch, a gorilla wandering about in the Sierra Nevada mountains, or a human trying to sound like an ape.

And maybe not. (That's the skeptical side of me..............there is no denial in me regarding this question).

[Guest RayG]

PT asks what gave me the right to submit HIS (Nelson's) work to HIS professional organizations?

First, Nelson himself requested that his conclusions be "published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely". The last time I visited the website (today), it was still there, in plain sight, for all to see.

Second, that's how you test conclusions, you get other qualified people to look at them.

Third, you have no idea if he belongs to those organizations or not, nor do I. It's his results that should be examined, not which organization he belongs to.

Fourth, YOU have no business telling ME where I may or may not submit work that is to be distributed freely. There was no caveat included, so I was under no obligation to keep his results out of the hands of qualified people.

Fifth, the notion that claims about bigfoot should not or cannot be challenged is laughable. If footers (and I include myself in that term) want bigfoot to be taken seriously, then they have to start treating it seriously.

Sixth, if you have not worked as a crypto-linguist, and I have, then there's a good chance I will have more insight into crypto-linguistic claims than you. Nelson's claims do not jive with my knowledge of the training, equipment, and working conditions, so I require additional information/clarification before I embrace them at face value.

Seventh, if qualified people examine his methods/results/claims and applaud them, then I have no trouble admitting I was incorrect.

Eighth, to my knowledge, my actions in no way contravened the rules of this forum. If they did, please point out the specific rule I supposedly broke.

Ninth, I strive to leave my emotions at the door when I debate bigfoot, I suggest you do the same.

RayG

Edited November 28, 2010 by RayG

[Guest]

PT asks what gave me the right to submit HIS (Nelson's) work to HIS professional organizations?

First, Nelson himself requested that his conclusions be "published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely". The last time I visited the website (today), it was still there, in plain sight, for all to see.

Second, that's how you test conclusions, you get other qualified people to look at them.

Except Ray, he was speaking to the bigfoot community, those "Research Websites". Exactly which Linguist Organizations are you aware of that researches bigfoot? You made the leap in who his audience was intended as!

For that matter, submitting his paper to what may or may not be HIS professional membership organization is reckless on its own, not to mention it being based on YOUR chosen timeframe for review of a document that is not intended for that audience. That is what's screwy with your rationale. Sharing his document as something its not, is just a little different then his intention on sharing with the bigfoot field isn't it? In other words, your twisting his words.

Third, you have no idea if he belongs to those organizations or not, nor do I. It's his results that should be examined, not which organization he belongs to.

Is that how you justify your taking the liberty to have his results examined? You don't know? Pleading ignorance now? Did he ask that his paper be examined by ANY Linguistic Organization Ray? That's the point here that you don't seem to respect whatsoever.

Fourth, YOU have no business telling ME where I may or may not submit work that is to be distributed freely. There was no caveat included, so I was under no obligation to keep his results out of the hands of qualified people.

Once again, it is you Ray who took the liberty of submitting a paper on behalf of someone else for peer review. He did not authorize that specific submission did he? That's kind of a specific group isn't it?

Fifth, the notion that claims about bigfoot should not or cannot be challenged is laughable. If footers (and I include myself in that term) want bigfoot to be taken seriously, then they have to start treating it seriously.

Well, now you're really reaching if that is your justification. I'm sure many professionals will recognize what individuals they can and can't trust in this field. Just curious, but where were you when Jane Goodall was raked over the coal by her peers?

Sixth, if you have not worked as a crypto-linguist, and I have, then there's a good chance I will have more insight into crypto-linguistic claims than you. Nelson's claims do not jive with my knowledge of the training, equipment, and working conditions, so I require additional information/clarification before I embrace them at face value.

You seem to be the one here stuck on the title of Crypto. Is that it, you can't fathom that a Crypto-Linguist could possibly know more then you do? You don't really understand his work do you Ray? Is that why? You've already gone on record of how much credential you believe the title gives him. You just can't accept that he made progress. lol He's a linguist as well and his abilities to not only speak multiple languages but understand the structure of language, is why he is qualified. You've never even seen his presentation in person have you? And so once again, what gives you the right to essentially speak for him in submitting his work to a non intended audience?

Seventh, if qualified people examine his methods/results/claims and applaud them, then I have no trouble admitting I was incorrect.

Please, share with us your Cover Letter introducing his paper Ray. I'm sure you couched the presentation of it in a professional manner.

Eighth, to my knowledge, my actions in no way contravened the rules of this forum. If they did, please point out the specific rule I supposedly broke.

You chose to make the bed Ray. There's different kinds of rules in life. There are rules of decency. Rules of policy. Rules of protocol. etc. Many recognize what is proper protocol. As someone who claims to have worked alongside a Crypto-Linguist in the military, you should understand that. You have repeatedly stated that you do not feel his credentials as a Crypto-Linguist gives him the skills herein. So how is it your good intentions to submit his work prematurely, to an organization that isn't even the military one you flaunt? And why should anyone entrust you if this is the length you would go to embarrass a person to make a point?

Ninth, I strive to leave my emotions at the door when I debate bigfoot, I suggest you do the same.

RayG

I'm not so sure you do leave them at the door Ray, or you wouldn't have stooped to what you did.

[Guest]

Huh? So, you are saying that Mr Nelson's findings should only be scrutinized at Bigfoot research web sites? Wha? What's the point in that? Is it not better to have qualified peer linguists look at his work?

[Guest RayG]

Huh? So, you are saying that Mr Nelson's findings should only be scrutinized at Bigfoot research web sites? Wha? What's the point in that? Is it not better to have qualified peer linguists look at his work?

Apparently not.

PT, would you like to see Nelson's work validated by professional linguists? I would. All I seek is the truth, and if it turns out I'm wrong about his capabilities, then so be it. I'd rather be wrong and find the truth, than pretend to be right.

Nelson's results were published on a public website, not a private message forum, he himself requested they be distributed freely, and there was no restriction on where they should be distributed. How many in the bigfoot community are professional linguists, and why are you so opposed to them looking at his work? Did Nelson tell you he didn't want them looking at it? Are you afraid they will find errors in his methods or conclusions? If they approve of his results, then you'll have even more ammunition to insult me with. I think it's a win-win situation if it helps establish the truth, no matter what the professional linguists conclude. I might not even get a response, so that's a third possibility.

I'm not pleading ignorance to anything. I didn't do anything wrong, nor have you specified any BFF rules I've broken. Just because YOU apparently don't want qualified people taking a close look at his work, doesn't mean I hold the same opinion.

I have no idea why you're bringing Jane Goodall into the discussion. Is she a linguist?

RayG

[Guest]

You are really thinking I am saying they should not be shared with bigfoot organizations? That's really stretching reasonableness. He submitted it to bigfoot organizations didn't he? Golly gee Ray, just maybe he intended his paper for the specific bigfooting audience? You think?

I guess the fact that Sasquatch doesn't exist in the eyes of science, has nothing to do with the messed up rationale you used for taking the actions you did, does it Ray?

Obviously common sense doesn't work with some people.

Huh? So, you are saying that Mr Nelson's findings should only be scrutinized at Bigfoot research web sites? Wha? What's the point in that? Is it not better to have qualified peer linguists look at his work?

Only if my words are being twisted as well John.

[Guest LittleFeat]

I'm really disappointed with the direction that this thread has taken. I guess that makes me one of the members that's causing the problems.

I think that many of the skeptics on this site are really interested in the truth, but there are some that just sit back and apparently don't want to hear about anything BF-related unless or until it's accompanied with "strong" evidence and/or proof; what an easy role they play. They don't have to do anything to further the research themselves; they just criticize those that suggest that they have evidence, then eventually just say "where's the proof". True skeptics thoughtfully examine the evidence and try to rationalize what is being presented. "Bashers", as I'll refer to them as, reject everything that doesn't fit into their belief system and quickly shift the burden of proof back to the witnesses. I guess that witnesses could counter with "prove that I didn't see a BF", but that would just feed the basher's fire.

IMHO, the people that are willing to tell their stories to us or share their research with us don't really have very much to gain on the BFF unless they are masochists. This is why many witnesses form their own private invitation-only forums so that they can speak freely, scrutinize evidence and determine how the evidence fits into the big picture, without the constant harassment. Believe it or not, even the people that have had unexplainable experiences are skeptical too.

I've read many witness reports with excerpts such as "I never believed in BF and thought it was just a bunch of hooey", "I have had trouble believing what I saw", "I know it was not a bear or a mountain lion or elk...", and "Now I'm a believer". Sometimes a witness comes forward years after an experience because they've seen something on TV or on the internet that makes them feel safer about reporting their experience. Sure, we want to weed-out the hoaxers, everyone does, but do we really want to create an unwelcome environment for those who have the guts to finally tell their story? Maybe there story is true, but they don't have substantial evidence or proof. Does that mean that they didn't see a BF or experience some other unexplainable phenomena that could help us further our understanding?

Everyone wants proof, but as I have said before, the road to establishing proof is just as important as proof itself. We will learn so much more about the creatures if we ease up and allow others to share their stories without duress. Asking the witnesses questions and for clarifications is quite understandable, but demanding proof is a bit over the top at this point. It will take an enormous amount of cooperation, tolerance, patience and data before we can understand the parameters involved. If in fact they do exist, once we know much more about these creatures and are able to predict their behavior, travels, food sources, etc, we can start demanding stronger evidence, but we're not there yet. Having fewer witnesses come forward to report their experiences for fear of ridicule will only prolong the search for proof.