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

[Guest]

If they are so inhuman, then why was he able to speak the words during his presentation?

Because he slowed the audio recordings down and he spoke the sounds. He pointed out that some of the sounds sounded like English words (e.g., food). I could not hear what he claimed to be hearing, but I don't claim to have a great sense of hearing. Nelson pointed out that some linguists claimed to hear words in their native language (e.g., Spanish). Perhaps the speakers are mimicking what they have heard spoken; perhaps the similarities are a coincidence.

[Guest]

Let's see if I can put things into a different perspective Ray. I would have posted yesterday but had some site posting issues that are now fixed. This is Scott Nelson's introductory letter (with the opening addressee section highlighted), which you happened to omit from your validation, as you instead took only the sentence portion you wanted from its overall context. Just who does it say its addressed to Ray? Not any linguists societies does it?

Fm: R. Scott Nelson

To: Sasquatch Research Community

Re: Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA) (attached)

Since I became involved in Sasquatch research a little over two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mails from around the country involving first-hand witness accounts, many containing recorded audio files, of perceived Sasquatch Language. Virtually all of these have included an attempt to spell out Sasquatch “words†using Standard English. This is of little value to the language researcher, since English is notoriously non-phonetic and is subject to widely-varied local dialects.

Since our ultimate goal is the recovery of Sasquatch Language, I have found it necessary to establish a phonetic alphabet and transcription standard (based on the transcription of the Berry/Morehead tapes), by which the contrast and comparison of all future suspected language can be facilitated.

To this end, as an invaluable tool in the future of Sasquatch Language research, I am requesting that the attached standard be published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely. With this, I am also requesting that local investigators begin using this alphabet as soon as possible to accurately document any perceived Sasquatch Language.

This standard should not be limited to first-hand witness accounts or recordings from North America, but should be used by investigators world-wide, since most languages have many of the same non-phonetic characteristics as English. The work is written in the style of a military SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).

It is my belief that there is nothing more important, at this early stage of Sasquatch Language study, than to standardize the documentation of evidence.

With highest regard for all those engaged in the work of Sasquatch recognition;

R. Scott Nelson

20 June 2010

Where do you see that his paper was intended for Linguist groups Ray? Do you simply lack understanding for respecting boundaries? Knowing that most linguistics organizations probably haven't yet endorsed Sasquatch' existence (lol, what do you think about that?), I'd say Scott Nelson made things perfectly clear as to whom his intended audience was, don't you? And YET, you pussyfooted around who HIS intended audience was in a truly improper manner. Maybe someday he will formally present his completed works (which this paper is not, on its own!) to that audience, but it will be his decision on what to 'formally' submit and to Whom.

The Addressee section is kind of the key little tidbit you conveniently left out of your earlier post Ray, you know, where you shared the section about 'freely distributing'. Is that a form of 'selective reading'? Ya, the intended recipients are kinda important in your sinking unrighteous position. Yet you presumed to grant yourself authority (aka liberty) to submit a paper for formal peer review, to a distinct institution(s), and for an individual, you had no granted authority to speak for. If you're lucky Ray, those institutions will just laugh your submission off as coming from some overzealously disgruntled bigfoot quack. LOL Others however, might take falsely representing a persons professional interest kinda harshly. The "taking liberty" part, might appear to mean you did so on his behalf. Is that what you did Ray? Let's get that on record now. That defense should hold up real well for ya if things go south. Where in the heading, or anywhere for that matter, does it say to please FORMALLY SUBMIT TO 'Linguists Societies' on Scott Nelson's behalf Ray? Where are linguist societies specifically written anywhere on that document as the intended recipient under its present format? And even if they were the intended recipient, he would have written the document in a completely different format wouldn't he? Of course you knew that but still you sidestepped the process and natural progression of HIS works, for your own little game. You chose to disregard and bypass any professional standard and protocol that HE might have (or even be required) in making such a submission to a given professional organization. I think he was fairly clear in his letter that his paper was directed to the bigfoot field, not to Linguistic Societies.

Edited December 1, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

RayG said:

"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. "

Again, where does Scott Nelson say that his paper was written or intended for anyone other then bigfoot researchers? You took a liberty Ray that was not yours to take. Heck, you twisted his meaning of who his intended audience was. It's in clear concise lettering right on the top! See it?! I do somewhat wonder if your rash action could eventually put yourself in someone's legal cross-hairs? Most common sense people recognize boundaries and that his paper was being written to us, not to linguist societies. Nor was it written in a format he would have used or been required in a formal submission paper to a Linguist Society. Guess we shall see how it plays out. You stepped outside your bounds, and as has been stated otherwise, whatever rules BFF has or not, makes little difference with respect to 'your' outside actions. Its on YOU Ray. lol It was not your place, plain and simple. Its HIS right to submit HIS paper to a separate and distinct organization when he felt HIS work was ready to do so, you prematurely presented it in a fashion he would NEVER consider doing. I wonder what an attorney would ultimately think of your self authorized deed? I'm guessing that if Scott. Nelson had his reputation harmed by your actions, he won't play the same word games with you here. So yes if you're lucky, everyone will laugh your actions off. It remains a sad commentary that you don't recognize just how inconsiderate you were.

As of completing this letter yesterday, I received a phone call from Scott. He kinda chuckles at you Ray, wondering about your knowledge of what his past duties and skills are, given he retired as a Crypto-Linguist some 20 years ago, when you offer some present day basic job description. He doubts you will succeed in any submission effort however, being you thoughtlessly stepped far outside any formal submission guidelines. He sees no value in entering your convoluted semantics game here either. He isn't very happy that some individuals have made assertions that they are doing this for the money either, as he pointed out that Ron and Al didn't need money. I wonder how much they put out just to have Jonathan Frakes narrate the CD? As for Nelson, just what mechanism do you Splash, or JC see for how he has made money? Flying across the country to bigfoot conventions to make time-consuming presentations? lol With the OSS, he had his hotel room and meals covered. Wow! Cha Ching lol Heck, I even gave them rides to and from the hotel to conference to help out. Uh oh, Toby gave me $40 for my fuel. OMG, I'm guilty of profiteering! AAAAaaaaaggggghhhhh. lol

Scott also said his plans do include having his work looked at by 'individual' linguists as things progress, but again Ray, that's far different from your submitting his early paper to a formal organization it was not written for. It was designed and written for bigfooters Ray, simply to gather more information and act as a beginning for a standard which we can use.

You may have missed my query the first couple times, so I'll ask yet again:

Would you like to see Nelson's work validated by professional linguists? Yes or no?

RayG

Ray, you seem incapable of understanding the gist of your action, while many do recognize it isn't your call whether this segment of his work is validated by HIS peer organizations. The research (and overall mystery) isn't ready for THAT format! You know that don't you? When he feels its ready, then I'll support whatever he does. Stop trying to seek validation for your own misguided single deed. His seeking of individual linguist review is also vastly different from the 'Membership Organization' Review you pursued, which was premature and well outside the context of the document. That's the difference! That's where your Yes or No question is fallacious as well.

Edited December 1, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest RayG]

PT, your hand-wringing self-righteous indignation at having me submit his conclusions to those qualified to examine them is duly noted. If either of those linguist organizations actually reply to my email, and validate his phonetic alphabet and transcription standard claim, I expect you to hoist me upon your shoulders and parade me through the streets of Bigfootdom for advancing the research into bigfoot language. If, on the other hand, they invalidate his phonetic alphabet and transcription standard claim, then I expect you to continue to fling dung in my direction and treat me as an unwanted growth on the buttocks of the bigfoot community. Kinda like you do now.

Would you frown upon me trying to contact some of my former associates who worked as cypto-linguists, to get their opinion on Nelson's phonetic alphabet and transcription standard claim?

Do you think ANY examination of his phonetic alphabet and transcription standard claim is warranted, or should we just accept his word for it?

RayG

[bipedalist]

Had Ray simply cut and pasted a URL and asked a question of the membership of a linguist society for a volunteer to review the conceptual formulation and application of the alphabet, and simply linked to the Sierra Sounds Bigfoot site or CD (better yet sent them a complimentary copy), it would be considered getting a second opinion. Because he has cut and pasted the actual alphabet it seems to be offending some members. I, personally, do not feel qualified to apply his alphabet to anyone's "samurai chatter" without training, yet Nelson asks that Sasquatch researchers routinely apply his construct to instances of suspected sasquatch utterances. I have not attended a Nelson talk, and I generally support what Nelson is doing as I have had first hand experience with the strange Sasquatch verbalizations. I generally support what Nelson has proposed and what he is doing. I would feel more comfortable, as always, with peer review from qualified personnel chiming in. I think Ray may be underestimating Nelson's skills and abilities (and perhaps even his training). But I also feel he may have valid reasons for wanting more information. It can not hurt IMHO.

Edited December 1, 2010 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Because he slowed the audio recordings down and he spoke the sounds.

And sound recording speeds cannot be manipulated?

[Guest]

Again, where does Scott Nelson say that his paper was written or intended for anyone other then bigfoot researchers?

Then what's the point? To make the believers, believe that the sounds may be from a Bigfoot? Is that necessary? Most already do. How is that productive to moving this research forward? This is being pushed by many here, including yourself as possible ground breaking evidence, please explain

it's usefulness other then curiosity factor.

[Guest]

No JC & Ray, don't you understand? He provided US (bigfooters) something to work with. A starting point. Every step in validating these creatures has got to begin somewhere. There's many mysteries under the umbrella of one big one. Their strange eye glow. Their Screams. Their smell. Their elusiveness. Their language. Etc. All these mysteries add up to what these creatures are. Understanding those pieces is how we will eventually understand the species. Some of you are so damned impatient that you cut off your noses as you prematurely cut away at any evidence that anyone claims too. You give nobody's claim a chance to be nurtured and explored. The two of you make a great couple. One who knows bigfoot exists and the other who doubts it, but each of you want to shoot the messenger with the same gun.

This early analysis by Nelson is just the beginning. Something for others who may also have vocalizations can then inspect. And should some of those people discover the same sound combinations in their recordings, then not only is there potential for corroboration of Nelson's work, but any new vocalizations can then be further interpreted using the same base standard. And when you have two different sources that result in similar findings, even with just a few overlaps, then we have something more. That's how the field and overall understanding grows. What do you guys think research is? Pull a lever and the truth plops out of some magic opening? It takes trial and error. Lots of it.

John, if you really want to find answers, then stop marching forward like you are attacking the enemy. Most of us aren't your enemy. Some of us even have part of the answers. Some on the other hand, want to just quash all positive efforts no matter what. You can't seem to decide what you want. You say you want answers but your way is not how answers are attained. Scientists who explore mysteries don't do that either. They don't march forward trampling over every little claim and piece of evidence, discarding everything out of hand because they weren't there or don't bother to properly research the information as they should. You'd argue with your own claim of seeing a bigfoot if you didn't at least know better.

Contact away with your former crypto friends Ray, but when you present them information, try giving your friends an honest description of what he did, what its intent was, how the information was extrapolated, HIS skills, which you cannot possibly appreciate unless you were there to witness yourself, and even a reasonable picture of what his background actually is. Ray, he has some skills that you are totally missing in your restrained view of his Crypto-L background. Your repeated words here, the old BFF, and over on JREF, have been to dismiss his Crypto-Linguist credibility because of what your limited interpretation is of that position. Do you think maybe your view could be just a little off, or that maybe he has some other refined vocal composition skills?

[Guest]

No JC & Ray, don't you understand? He provided US (bigfooters) something to work with.

This early analysis by Nelson is just the beginning.

John, if you really want to find answers, then stop marching forward like you are attacking the enemy. Most of us aren't your enemy. Some of us even have part of the answers.

And you don't seem to understand that you you cannot have a Bigfoot research beginning or "base" in regards to the Sierra sounds. There is no evidence that that Sierra sounds are even Bigfoot. There is no evidence that ANY Bigfooter have Bigfoot sound recordings. The best anyone has is "unknown" animal. What can the Bigfooters do with these comparisons? Can I can listen to my recordings and make a conclusion like:

" Hey, you know this sound I have recorded that may possibly be a Bigfoot, it sounds just like a sound I heard on the Sierra recordings that may possibly be a Bigfoot, that Scott Nelson possibly translated and it possibly means, I like peanut butter."

Lots of possibilities there... But no hard evidence.

[Guest]

Your repeated words here, the old BFF, and over on JREF,

I have already warned members of bringing this and other forums into our conversations. What a member says on another forum, such as the JREF will not be brought over to this forum. If you have a problem with the JREF or what a member of that forum says, take it to that forum.

Prag, you seem to still be missing the heart of the matter. Until the Sierra Sounds can be determined that it is a bigfoot talking, they can't be useful to anybody that is trying to use a scientific method in their research.

As good as Mr. Nelson is, as a former Crypto Linguist, he cannot decipher an unknown language. Crypto Linguist's must have a "real" language to work with. A language that someone actually uses to speak to someone else.

The fact that in his "work" he must slow down the Sierra Sound recordings to even attempt to make a phonetic alphabet from it, makes it useless to the everyday person.

You can argue the issue until you are blue in the face, but it won't make the Sierra Sounds a real bigfoot language.

[Guest RayG]

No JC & Ray, don't you understand? He provided US (bigfooters) something to work with.

I understand the only way to determine its worth, is by having qualified people look at it. I also understand that providing bigfooters with unproven phonetic alphabets and transcription standards is not going to solve anything. I think I'm starting to understand why you don't want qualified people looking at it.

Some of you are so damned impatient that you cut off your noses as you prematurely cut away at any evidence that anyone claims too. You give nobody's claim a chance to be nurtured and explored.

That might be your viewpoint, but it's not mine. I want bigfoot evidence examined with the same scrutiny as any other claim that gets examined. There shouldn't be any special rules that apply just because it's a claim associated with bigfoot.

What do you guys think research is?

Research? Diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc., same as the dictionary.

Contact away with your former crypto friends Ray, but when you present them information, try giving your friends an honest description of what he did, what its intent was, how the information was extrapolated, HIS skills, which you cannot possibly appreciate unless you were there to witness yourself, and even a reasonable picture of what his background actually is.

Very well, I shall see if I can contact some of them. I shouldn't have to put ANY kind of spin, good or bad, on his work/conclusions though, they merely have to look at the information he presents on the website and give me their honest opinion.

Ray, he has some skills that you are totally missing in your restrained view of his Crypto-L background. Your repeated words here, the old BFF, and over on JREF, have been to dismiss his Crypto-Linguist credibility because of what your limited interpretation is of that position. Do you think maybe your view could be just a little off, or that maybe he has some other refined vocal composition skills?

I've already mentioned what you should do if I'm right or wrong.

I've also already mentioned my own experience working with crypto-linguists as the reason I have doubts about his claims. I have to ask, what qualifications/real-life experiences do you have to accept his crypto-linguist claims at face value?

RayG

[Guest Spazmo]

Wow, this argument has endured far longer than I thought it would.

PT, submitting another's work to his peers may not be something that you or I would do, but it does seem like something that a skeptic would do. I was not surprised in the least by Ray's actions. And I also do not see the harm it them. I too am curious as to what Nelson's peers have to say, but at the same time, their opinion certainly does not represent any type of proof or disproof of his claims. Only opinions.

I see some merit in both arguments. As mentioned, I personally might not take it upon myself to refer someone's peers to their work (if they found interest in it, they may already be fully aware of it). But I also can't fault Ray for seeking those opinions on his own. They seemed to be absent from the discussion, and Ray took a crack at getting some professional opinions. I would expect nothing less from Ray in this case.

One thing I do have an issue with, however: If Ray has worked as a crypto-linguist as has Nelson, then I do think Ray is more qualified than I am to make any determinations about the scope of work normally encountered by a crypto-linguist. This seems fair and logical to me.

So, what are we left with here? You don't like what Ray did, and Ray doesn't care whether you like it or not. Those two things are not going to change, so why keep arguing about it? Ray is not going to see things your way, and you are not going to see things Ray's way. This is a perfect example of...

Agree to disagree...

Once this has been achieved, I'm sure we'll see a "duly noted" from one or both of you, and the discussion can move forward. Does this sound fair?

[Guest]

Pragmatic Theorist,

Perhaps, since you are in voice contact with Scott Nelson, you could have him answer a question for me (perhaps others are also wondering this same thing). Why is Mr. Nelson, IMHO, re-inventing the wheel? On his website (I presume it's his?), http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/Bigfootlanguage.html, he lists his "phonetic alphabet". All of the phonemes and the examples he gives (eg. A = a as in man) are already covered in the existing International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), as well as clicks, pops, glottal stops, whistles, etc. I applaud him for undertaking as massive a task as making heads or tails of an unknown possible language, but I feel he is creating too much work for himself.

Thank you

Chris

[Guest]

RayG said:

I understand the only way to determine its worth, is by having qualified people look at it. I also understand that providing bigfooters with unproven phonetic alphabets and transcription standards is not going to solve anything. I think I'm starting to understand why you don't want qualified people looking at it.

That might be your viewpoint, but it's not mine. I want bigfoot evidence examined with the same scrutiny as any other claim that gets examined. There shouldn't be any special rules that apply just because it's a claim associated with bigfoot.

But you didn't apply it under a standard that is fair to the presenter or to the claim Ray.

Tell me Ray, exactly how would you expect a Linguist organization to review his work objectively, when I suspect you realize that most members PROBABLY DON'T BELIEVE bigfoot exists?! lol So how could such a 'body' review ANYBODY'S work with ANY form of unbiased approach? You know they can't and that's where your intent is questioned. It would be like your asking them to analyze a report from someone about language of the Two-Headed Gombot race from the planet Fendraulica. lol YA, just what would a linguist society make of such a paper, that was written to Gombot researchers no less? My point exactly! The whole existence concept (language or not) might just sound a little silly to them wouldn't it? That's partly why your submission of someone else's paper was inappropriate. The main point remains, it wasn't your paper to submit to what are Membership Organizations with Submission Standards that the paper wasn't written for.

However, if they were at the point of recognizing that sasquatch exists, then that would be half the equation. Problem is, we're not there yet for the majority of fields out there. And I have a feeling that Ray probably didn't go very far in arguing their existence to these linguist organizations, did ya Ray? The other missing half is that Nelson would write a paper ACTUALLY ADDRESSED TO Linguists Societies for Submission, under their Rules & Standards. How much must I repeat this before Ray acknowledges it? RayG ignored both these elements and that's what can't be wordsmithed away by Ray or anyone. So Ray, when you 'think' you see what I don't want to happen, make sure you SEE your flawed reasoning too!

I love a good intellectual challenge Splash, as long as the table remains level. But if some just want to ignore relevant points when continuing their convoluted misdirection in argument, well I just see old bad habits returning to bff instead. This fear is being raised repeatedly in the forum. I hope the new owners recognize the trend. And splash, he wasn't just deciphering an unknown language, some of them sounded like English words too. You do realize that right?

Here's another perspective on a larger issue. Is it possible that many in this field hasn't distinguished that bigfooting fits largely in the Behavioral Sciences field, just as much as in the Test-tube Science side (per se)? The protocols and evaluation processes are simply different. In behavior, you don't demand proof of every finding, because you can't. This is primarily due to the fact that you cannot always fully direct experience or knowledge of the events. Such researchers don't 'repeat' every little experiment in behavioral research, mainly because they usually can't. Splash, you weren't there to 'observe' the reported behavior that Moorhead and Berry's witnessed 30+ years ago and neither was I. Were you even alive? At some point we have to begin trusting some researchers and their work. This IS the nature of behavioral research. You will NEVER have the benefit of that direct experience that research scientists do. No, they weren't actual scientists, but neither was Goodall when Leakey sent her to Africa, but they did the best they could at the time and their observations were trusted. That's how behavioral research happens. Have you ever sat down with Ron Moorhead and had him explain his experience to you Splash?

Its the field that needs to make some growth changes, and in so doing, its going to have to recognize that sometimes people need to be trusted more in their work, just like researchers are in other fields. Moorehead has stuck to his story for over 3 decades. Sadly, just about every researcher in this field gets drug back down by those who weren't there to experience the claims for themselves. Well, get used to 'not having' the same experience, that is Behavioral Sciences!

http://en.wikipedia....ioural_sciences

Our area of research is split into two main categories. Those such as Meldrum, Krantz, who are/were most interested in some form of physical evidence, then there are those like Goodall and other biologists who are interested in species behavior. Not that either are not interested in the other, but they have their focus. Behaviorists rely on different forms of interpretation and evidence, and much of it is subjective, 'based' on their observations. Its about interpreting actions, sounds, interactions, vocalizations, etc. In species behavior you can't have a video camera running 24 hrs on every little activity, and so those not present have to rely on the observations of field researchers for their conclusions & theories, because the majority of their field experiences often cannot be shared with you due to such difficult conditions. Often in the dark on some mountain. Many bigfooters fit within the Behavioral Research grouping. We are not test tube researchers for the most part. The habituator too is most interested in their behavior as well.

If you would like a lighter description, here's one.

http://flowstate.hom...ehaviorism.html

At some point, the bigfoot field is going to have to come to terms with the terminus elements in forums for assessing what happens in the field. Otherwise it will continue to pit the haves from the have not so to speak. Those who don't go into the field, don't believe in bigfoot's existence, haven't experienced a variety of events themselves, won't always be able to judge all evidence fairly. That's the plain and simple truth. There will be little progress made under the present framework if there is not some accommodation made for those who fulfill this area of research. That is, if certain people actually wanted progress? As a result, the field has created a predicament of contradictory rules and expectations. One side wants physical evidence, which is akin to a body, but the ones who are getting closer to the species are experiencing the less tangible kind of evidence, ie behavior. That is a real science too! But that is the gist of frustration people experience when reading other's results. They weren't there themselves to validate it. Its a real dilemma for this field has, but I suspect many won't even accept that because all they know is to demand a body. lol Sorry they can't share some of the amazing experiences of people in the field, which prevents them from interpreting events in the field as they could otherwise. They just won't get it from reading some report.

Does it make sense why I raised behaviorial research, when we're talking about the Moorhead/Berry recordings and Nelson? Because most of what they did and what most of the rest of us do, fits under that category. I go out there to interact. Many here do. Distinguishing the difference is how both views can be understood. So before discounting the Sierra Sounds out of hand, maybe give the researchers who were there a little more credit?

I've made no claim of being a linguist Ray, but what I do understand is the nature of the mystery and how they are using their skills to interpret it. I also spent enough time in the field, had more then my share of bigfoot experiences, understood Nelson's presentation, and was able to spend time with them to see their sincerity. Pretty simple.

What I do realize Spazmo is that some people have trouble recognizing the differences in disciplines, and that the 'show me a body' group will need to recognize the other field of study as part of the growth process, and accept the basic tenets of that type of study. That is, if they actually wanted to see the field grow...? If all they will accept are test tube results, then they may simply end up holding an empty vial.

Good question Chris, but again he was deciphering their vocalizations FOR US. He's not reinventing anything, he took what most of us can't or aren't skilled understand or interpret, and applied that to a standard for our understanding. One sound fragment at a time. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll let me know and I'll pass it on here. Oh, that's not his website either, they, like others, have reposted his work for other bigfooters, as Nelson requested.

Edited December 3, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

I love a good intellectual challenge Splash, as long as the table remains level. But if some just want to ignore relevant points when continuing their convoluted misdirection in argument, well I just see old bad habits returning to bff instead.

The only convoluted misdirection I see here is your argument. You go around and around. I swear, you would argue with a fence post. Well, I am not a fence post. You continue to miss the basic premise in all of this. The Sierra Sounds have not been proven to be sasquatch. They could easily have been made by humans. Scott Nelson cannot decipher an unknown language, no matter how good of a Crypto Linguist he once was. Get it?

Dance around it all you want. I don't have time to keep pointing it out to you.

I sure will be glad when people stop making statements like..."well I just see old bad habits returning to bff instead". So far, I haven't seen any of those bad habits here, and I didn't see it on the "old" BFF, either.

Just because we have members here that disagree with you, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with this BFF. In fact, it is just that benefit of discussion and debate that makes this place worth anything in the bigfoot community.

This fear is being raised repeatedly in the forum.

Only by people like you. Why don't you just engage in discussions of bigfoot and stop looking for some sinister motive here.

And splash, he wasn't just deciphering an unknown language, some of them sounded like English words too. You do realize that right?

Well, finally a breakthrough. Yes, because it was probably made by humans, that speak Engilish.

Here's another perspective on a larger issue. Is it possible that many in this field hasn't distinguished that bigfooting fits largely in the Behavioral Sciences field, just as much as in the Test-tube Science side (per se)?

Now you are reaching. There can't be a behavior science study until we have a real live bigfoot to study. How do you study the behavior of a creature that hasn't been proven to exist?