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

[Guest]

Nice post, LittleFeat, however it doesn't apply here to this thread, and really doesn't apply to this forum.

Nobody is bashing anybody else in this thread and we don't let people bash others on this forum.

And yes, there are some that totally reject anything bigfoot in this world, but for the most part we do have "true skeptics" on this forum.

What I see our true skeptics doing on this forum is keeping us grounded on what we can do to provide proof and evidence that the general public, much less the scientific community, will accept.

Why would you be disappointed with the direction this thread has taken? Is it because some people on this forum are interested in finding proof and truth?

Everyone wants proof, but as I have said before, the road to establishing proof is just as important as proof itself.

Are you saying that Scott Nelson is exempt from that? Would you say that Mr. Nelson is, or isn't, on that road.

I have yet to hear anywhere that he was planning to submit his studies for peer review. I have only heard that he was going to publish a book. And you brought that information here, yourself.

That was your thread starter. Now you don't want anyone to discuss Scott Nelson's work?

[Incorrigible1]

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.

From what I've seen, any "scrutiny" of the stories is met with feigned hurt and pain that anyone would dare ask for anything to substantiate their stories. Without substantiation, the fantastic stories are doomed to remain just that.

You speak of evidence, you speak of scrutiny, you mention allowing the story tellers being allowed to speak freely. Stories aren't evidence, scrutiny leads to the story tellers outrage and self-martyrdom, and I've not seen anyone here prevented from speaking freely.

[Guest RayG]

You are really thinking I am saying they should not be shared with bigfoot organizations?

Nope, nor did I suggest that. I don't think they should only be shared with bigfoot organizations, they should be shared by everyone, just as he requested. If that wasn't his intent, he should have chosen his wording more carefully.

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?

He submitted it to the people probably least qualified to either confirm or negate his findings. I'll ask again, would you like to see Nelson's work validated by professional linguists? It's not a hard question, a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

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?

It has more to do with Nelson's phonetic alphabet and transcription standard claim. If he has come up with valid conclusions/methods, then maybe it will open some scientific eyes just as wee bit, and let some light in.

Obviously common sense doesn't work with some people.

If only you spent half as much time trying to get to the bottom of this mystery as you do insulting people.

Only if my words are being twisted as well John.

Who's twisting words? You're coming up with things I've neither said nor even thought. What's up with that?

RayG

[Guest LittleFeat]

Nice post, LittleFeat, however it doesn't apply here to this thread, and really doesn't apply to this forum.

I respectfully disagree Splash. I'm talking about the treatment Scott Nelson is receiving, however it's pretty much the same for anyone that is trying to share their research or experiences, but doesn't have enough proof to curb the bashers.

Nobody is bashing anybody else in this thread and we don't let people bash others on this forum.

There is bashing going on. If you want to have a forum that consists only of bashers and skeptics and those witnesses hearty enough to endure their demands for the ultimate proof, then I guess that's okay.

And yes, there are some that totally reject anything bigfoot in this world, but for the most part we do have "true skeptics" on this forum.

I agree.

What I see our true skeptics doing on this forum is keeping us grounded on what we can do to provide proof and evidence that the general public, much less the scientific community, will accept.

Here's another point that we differ on. I have to believe that most if not all true witnesses go through a period where they are uncertain of what they experienced and have a difficult time reconciling it. They are already skeptically evaluating the evidence themselves and are on this forum to gain insight, not opposition, reagrding their experience. Even some of the true skeptics are too blunt and unwelcoming IMO. Before I post anything, I think about whether I would say the same thing to the person if I was looking them in the eyes. Unfortunately, the internet allows us to be impersonal and less tactful at times if weren't not careful.

Why would you be disappointed with the direction this thread has taken? Is it because some people on this forum are interested in finding proof and truth?

I'm disappointed because almost every thread where evidence or proof is discussed follows the same general path: first the questions (which are fine), then when evidence can't be produced for whatever reason, the back and forth parsing of replies commences, then people get angry, then the thread ends. Have the skeptics really kept us grounded if this is the case? I feel like the message being sent to witnesses is "don't tell your story unless you have brass ones and can stand the abuse". I for one like to hear the stories, but the threads are derailed by those demanding more evidence or proof before we hear what the witnesses have to say.

Are you saying that Scott Nelson is exempt from that? Would you say that Mr. Nelson is, or isn't, on that road.

Absolutely not, Scott Nelson's work should be scrutinized, but by criticizing his methods, intentions and credentials, we are sending the wrong message to others that may be able to help us arrive at the truth. Mr. Nelson is definitely on the road to proof, but I look at it as a multi-lane highway: there are many people working in parallel that will collectively enable us to establish proof.

I have yet to hear anywhere that he was planning to submit his studies for peer review. I have only heard that he was going to publish a book. And you brought that information here, yourself.

Yeah, so what? If you had experience in a area such as linguistics that you felt was interesting to the public, you would probably write a book too. It's his choice whether or not to submit his studies for peer review and how do we know he hasn't. I'm sure Mr. Nelson is aware that he will have to defend his assertions once the book is released.

That was your thread starter. Now you don't want anyone to discuss Scott Nelson's work?

"Discussing" his work and questioning his integrity are two different things. Even if Mr. Nelson is able to establish some evidence of a BF dialect, there will still be people that question the authenticity of the Sierra Sounds tapes and will fall back into their familiar pose of demanding a clear video or a body. Damned if he does and damned if he don't. Maybe he will determine that there's not enough evidence of a dialect. I think that encouraging research of this and all types is beneficial to the BF community, but what do I know anyway.

[Guest LittleFeat]

From what I've seen, any "scrutiny" of the stories is met with feigned hurt and pain that anyone would dare ask for anything to substantiate their stories. Without substantiation, the fantastic stories are doomed to remain just that.

How do you know if they're "feigning" or not? Some people are more sensitive than others, especially if they were expecting a more understanding and supportive audience. If I was sharing experiences that had a profound impact on my life and was confronted with disdain because I didn't have a photo, video, body or whatever proof that people required, I would be disappointed too. Without understanding and encouragement, the fantastic stories (that may be true) won't be shared and that would be a shame.

You speak of evidence, you speak of scrutiny, you mention allowing the story tellers being allowed to speak freely. Stories aren't evidence, scrutiny leads to the story tellers outrage and self-martyrdom, and I've not seen anyone here prevented from speaking freely.

Hmmm, self-martyrdom, yet another judgmental and derogatory label for the witnesses. I realize that stories aren't evidence, but their experience obviously has had a great impact on the them. I just happen to think that witnesses should be able to say that they don't have any substantial evidence without the fear of having their integrity questioned. That's what I mean by allowing the witnesses to speak freely.

[Guest]

Littlefeet,

There is a difference between badgering a witness and asking a witness questions. There is a difference between questioning the work someone publicly submits for review and personally attacking them. When I perceived a witness being harassed I spoke up. If I saw someone doing the same thing here in this thread, I would speak up. I just don't see it at all. No one has been out of line in this thread. If you feel they have, then click the report button and let the Mods do their job. Just because it's not what you or PT want or need to hear, does not mean it is derogatory.

[Branco]

John: What do actually believe made those sounds?

[Guest LittleFeat]

Littlefeet,

There is a difference between badgering a witness and asking a witness questions. There is a difference between questioning the work someone publicly submits for review and personally attacking them. When I perceived a witness being harassed I spoke up. If I saw someone doing the same thing here in this thread, I would speak up. I just don't see it at all. No one has been out of line in this thread. If you feel they have, then click the report button and let the Mods do their job. Just because it's not what you or PT want or need to hear, does not mean it is derogatory.

I acknowledged earlier that there is a difference between asking questions and bashing a witness. My idea of what constitutes bashing must be different from others. Here are excerpts from this thread that I think are condescending, lack tact and/or are incendiary?:

• 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.
  
• PT, what do you think being a crypto-linguist implies? What experience do you have with cyrpto-linguists?
  
• From what you've posted, I have to conclude that you know very little about crypto-linguists.
  
• So yes, it looks like you are impressed by his claims/title, while I am not, and for good reason. Regardless of how sincere he is, or what equipment he trots out, nothing in his background or qualifications enables him to decipher/translate an unknown/unrecognized language.
  
• The Sierra Sounds were recorded to make money, not help with the research of bigfoot. I would imagine that Mr. Nelson is doing the same thing.
  
• 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.
  
• 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.
  
• I strive to leave my emotions at the door when I debate bigfoot, I suggest you do the same.
  
• 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 have no idea why you're bringing Jane Goodall into the discussion. Is she a linguist?
  
• Nice post, LittleFeat, however it doesn't apply here to this thread, and really doesn't apply to this forum.
  
• Why would you be disappointed with the direction this thread has taken? Is it because some people on this forum are interested in finding proof and truth?
  
• From what I've seen, any "scrutiny" of the stories is met with feigned hurt and pain that anyone would dare ask for anything to substantiate their stories.
  
• He submitted it to the people probably least qualified to either confirm or negate his findings. I'll ask again, would you like to see a person's work validated by professional linguists? It's not a hard question, a simple yes or no answer will suffice.
  
• If only you spent half as much time trying to get to the bottom of this mystery as you do insulting people.
  
• Just because it's not what you or PT want or need to hear, does not mean it is derogatory.
  
• That was your thread starter. Now you don't want anyone to discuss Scott Nelson's work?
  

[Guest]

So where does Mr. Nelson get his skill at deciphering an unknown language? You know, a bigfoot language? From a recording that is not even proven to be a bigfoot? From a recording that could very well have been produced by humans making gibberish sounds?

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

[Guest]

I acknowledged earlier that there is a difference between asking questions and bashing a witness. My idea of what constitutes bashing must be different from others. Here are excerpts from this thread that I think are condescending, lack tact and/or are incendiary?:

SNIP

LittleFeat, I would have to agree with you that your idea of what constitutes bashing must be different from others.

I didn't see any statement that you listed that would be considered bashing, by the standards that the MODs would take a member to task for.

I would also question whether those statements were condescending, tactless or were incendiary.

Also, there is no witness in this thread that is getting questioned or bashed. The subject person is Scott Nelson, who so far, has not come to this forum and posted a witness report.

[Guest LittleFeat]

SNIP

LittleFeat, I would have to agree with you that your idea of what constitutes bashing must be different from others.

Yep.

I didn't see any statement that you listed that would be considered bashing, by the standards that the MODs would take a member to task for.

Okey dokey, but I'm not asking you to take anyone to task. You wouldn't be a Moderator if that was the case, you would be a Dictator. You can call them what you like, but there are bashers on this site, just like there are hoaxers, true witnesses, true skeptics, believers, non-believers and everyone in between.

I would also question whether those statements were condescending, tactless or were incendiary.

Okay, now I know where you stand and what to wish for for Christmas.

Also, there is no witness in this thread that is getting questioned or bashed. The subject person is Scott Nelson, who so far, has not come to this forum and posted a witness report.

It's the standard treatment that anyone receives if they make an effort to share their findings. If the BFF didn't have anyone posting their research or experiences on the forum, the bashers would be venting about something else, like the lack of research going on or the lack of reports. The "story tellers" can exist without the bashers, because the bashers don't contribute anything towards finding the truth. Their type of skepticism serves no purpose, because it's insulting. They are just mean-spirited individuals looking for some way to vent their frustrations without having to look someone in the eyes. Again, I'm talking about the BASHERS, not the true skeptics.

[Guest]

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

I saw Nelson speak a year before the OSS at his first presentation at the Bigfoot round-up. Where have you seen someone belittle Nelson in this thread? The problem is not that Mr. Nelson is deciphering a "unknown language" . It is the claim that he is deciphering Bigfoot language from the Sierra sounds. When there is zero evidence to prove that the Sierra sounds were created by Bigfoot. If Mr. Nelson's work interests people fine, but his findings are not evidence of Bigfoot regardless of how interesting some people find his work.

[Guest]

Here ya go John, another linguists conclusions about the validity of the recordings itself. Originally concluded with absolutely no connection to Nelson.

http://www.bigfootsounds.com/logan.asp

[Guest]

And John, what is the basic difference between Moorehead/Berry's claim of recording bigfoot and you claiming to have seen one? Why should anyone believe you seen one any more then of they recording them? You do know that sasquatch exists right? So what's the inherent difference in their claims vs yours? Lots of people have heard them vocalize. Is it because you haven't? You're chatting with Swamp Bandit asking similar questions, all the while wanting answers you can't seem to find. Why is it so difficult to believe that Moorehead/Berry actually recorded something that you know for a fact does exist? Is it just too difficult for you to believe they Sas be able to communicate with humans when they want, in their crude manner? Is it so difficult to believe that M/B became just as serious back then about this mystery as many people you know have become today? Heck, maybe you didn't see bigfoot and actually saw Bob Heronimous in a suit instead? Maybe its Bobby who is in your dreams, not bigfoot? Yuck, sorry for the image.

[Guest RayG]

Here ya go John, another linguists conclusions about the validity of the recordings itself. Originally concluded with absolutely no connection to Nelson.

http://www.bigfootsounds.com/logan.asp

Presenting herself as a linguist doesn't make her one. What training or degree does she have in linguistics?

RayG