indiefoot Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 Splash7, You have stated a number of times that, based on your observations, you have concluded that Bigfoot are apes and not proto human. Wouldn't that conclusion be based on a behavioral science study of the type that PT is referring to?
Guest Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 Not by any behavior of the creature, just my visual perception.
Guest Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 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. Thank you for clearing me up about the website. I don't see how it could be applied (or even re-applied) to a standard for our understanding. You still have to study/memorize his phonetic alphabet in order to be able to pronounce what he has transcribed. Every dictionary already has the International Phonetic Alphabet in it, either inside the front cover, the back cover, or in one of the appendices. Either way, one of the two phonetic alphabets has to be learned in order to even attempt to pronounce this unknown language, does it not? To me, it would seem logical to apply the one which has been in use, and proven, for many years already, instead of trying to come up with a new one. The IPA does not, as many people think, cover "human" language. It covers "sounds". Sounds which are used to MAKE a language. It doesn't necessarily have to be human. I understand what a difficult task Mr. Nelson has undertaken. I transcribe what my students say every day, and believe me, sometimes it's not the easiest thing in the world to do.
Guest Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 Don't tell me that's too much for ya Splash? You should open your horizons a bit. There is a methodology beyond the good ol' hum drum 'show me the body' argument. I'm glad you sound like someone who realizes that being a mod doesn't make you always right. 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? Your position that there can't be Behavioral Science Study will obviously fall on deaf ears of those who do engage sasquatch in the field. That's what you seem to be missing Splash. Are you sure you've actually seen one? Indiefoot also raises a good point there Splash. You've made a conclusion about what they are based on your "visual perception". Your words. So, basically you've made an observation of what they are, based on your interpretation of his/her appearance? So based on that, you were able to conclude they are ape. Right? Does this conclusion involve more then just because they are hairy all over? Did his/her face look like a gorilla or chimpanzee? Maybe like the apes in Planet Of The Apes? They weren't swinging from trees or eating bananas were they? Those are world proven indicators you know. lol Seriously, there was absolutely no behavior you witnessed that added to your conclusions? None? Nada? You concluded this very important fact solely on their overall physical and/or just facial appearance? I'm just trying to understand here what in their appearance leads you to conclude what they are. I don't know if I could ever have such refined skills myself. Because if you've made that crucial decision solely based on looks, wow! Chris, I'd say one of his main motivations in his publishing his work is so that when there are other people who do secure more recordings, then they see a method of making sense of the sounds they have. Thus they contact Nelson, who then takes what they have and integrates it into the same method of analysis to find commonalities as well as grow the content of material even further. A big part of Nelson's skills comes from his being able to sound out the very specific parts and then apply the phonetic alphabet to it. I'm sure you realize its not a skill most people have.
Guest Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 Your position that there can't be Behavioral Science Study will obviously fall on deaf ears of those who do engage sasquatch in the field. Who are "those that engage Sasquatch in the field"? What are their findings? Where is the documentation of these interactions?
Incorrigible1 Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 Who are "those that engage Sasquatch in the field"? What are their findings? Where is the documentation of these interactions? A good question, JC. Hopefully you'll not be branded a skeptic, as I have, for asking about the only photos available being upside down and 17' off the ground. Asking for the barest example of these interactions is seen (by some) as chasing off the witnesses from our fair forum.
indiefoot Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 Who are "those that engage Sasquatch in the field"? What are their findings? Where is the documentation of these interactions? I thought he was talking about people like you who had observed a Sasquatch in the field. What were your findings if any? Any conclusions or assumptions?
Guest Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 I thought he was talking about people like you who had observed a Sasquatch in the field. What were your findings if any? Any conclusions or assumptions? No he said "behavioral science". Which is not the same as a sighting. My findings were that it was a huge, scary, smelly, ape. It's not like I care what it is anyway. He is inferring that he and others (even Morehead and Berry) have had interactions with Bigfoot.
Guest Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 A good question, JC. Hopefully you'll not be branded a skeptic, as I have, for asking about the only photos available being upside down and 17' off the ground. Asking for the barest example of these interactions is seen (by some) as chasing off the witnesses from our fair forum. Brand me a skeptic. I don't care. Call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for dinner.
Guest Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 Chris, I'd say one of his main motivations in his publishing his work is so that when there are other people who do secure more recordings, then they see a method of making sense of the sounds they have. Thus they contact Nelson, who then takes what they have and integrates it into the same method of analysis to find commonalities as well as grow the content of material even further. A big part of Nelson's skills comes from his being able to sound out the very specific parts and then apply the phonetic alphabet to it. I'm sure you realize its not a skill most people have. That may be so, but I think I'd still rather hear Scott's reason's why he doesn't use the tried and true phonetic alphabet. I'm not saying you are wrong. Far from it, but from your usage of, " I'd say one of his main motivations ...", I get the impression that you, too, may be guessing. I'm not trying to be argumentative (G**d knows there's enough of that on public forums already). It just seems a bit strange to me why you would improvise a tool to do a job when you've already got the right one in your toolbox. I do agree that being able to apply the correct phonetic symbol to a phoneme is not a skill that most people have (it took me two years to be able to master it myself), but, by going slowly and methodically, it can be done. Most parents already know how to use phonetics. They do it when they teach their kids how to say simple words (/k-a-t/, cat). I could give an example of how to do the work Scott is attempting, using the IPA, but I'm not sure if the symbols would show up here. Thanks for your replies.
Guest Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 (edited) Who are "those that engage Sasquatch in the field"? What are their findings? Where is the documentation of these interactions? Who are they? Look at the Old BFF and all the people who ended up realizing its better to keep their results to themselves. Oh and plenty did try to share their observations. But the crossfire wasn't worth the trouble when many of the loudest were just trying trip witnesses up because of their own lack of experiences. Name their names? Why even justify it? So they can be targeted in some way over their credibility too? John, you were also a kid when your experience happened? So maybe its no wonder you viewed the one you saw at the distance you did as an ape? You probably hadn't matured enough yet to comprehend the possibility of a more complex explanation of what you were seeing and experiencing. Is that possible? You are an adult now, so you obviously recognize that most adolescents don't quite have all their reasoning skills and education in place. When I was in mid teens, I was on vacation in lower Mexico and went deep sea fishing. A giant manta ray swam under the boat. Man at the time I thought it must have been close to 50 feet across the wings, when in reality it was probably more like 20'. But that's just how young impressionable minds are. Chris Said: Far from it, but from your usage of, " I'd say one of his main motivations ...", I get the impression that you, too, may be guessing. Yep Chris, that was 'my take' on one of his motivations. But it is from hours of talking with he and Ron during & after the symposium. He wants to reach other bigfooters who have recordings, those are his words. Again, that's why he submitted his paper to the bigfoot field and not to linguists societies who probably don't have many bigfoot recordings in their databases. As for whichever alphabet he's using, keep in mind the species doesn't quite sound like us. Its a much deeper voice and at a higher speed at times. Point is, I suspect there is some acclimation needed in interpreting/voicing the different sounds they make as compared to ours. Maybe that's his reason for having to improvise an existing tool as you say? There are some other vocalizations around the bigfoot community too, and since he is trying to expand his base of information, maybe in the future we can expect more corroboration from each of those. Seems logical given his desire is to do just that. And in case it wasn't clear to some, his plans do include contact with 'individual' linguists, however I'm sure discussing something like bigfoot with anyone would require a little bit of explanation and easing into before throwing a limited paper on one's lap. But that's also a little different from submitting a paper cold to some completely un-expecting membership organizations, each with formal requirements for submission. Edited December 5, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist
Guest Spazmo Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 Brand me a skeptic. I don't care. Call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for dinner. Ok, see now, on Facebook, there's a "like" button. All I get here is one "+" a day, what's up with that? Who's running this place, anyway?
BobZenor Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 As someone who translated part of the tapes to English letters and threw in a translation just for fun, I agree that some of the sounds don't translate well using the English language. My whole attempt was for fun just to be clear. Some are also too fast for my ears or mind to process. I could see his work may have some value if like he apparently hopes, there are other recordings. I find the recordings compelling but they are certainly incomplete when they are really the only ones. I do find it hard to believe that a human made the sounds and it is even harder to believe that a large non-primate native animal or bird made the sounds. They might get the tones using a tube like the guy on the chimp video from this recent thread. I am skeptical that many people could even talk that fast. It is possible but I am skeptical but it is hard to prove a negative. Somebody somewhere might have that odd skill to jabber like that. It is an interesting project and I hope that one day he gets some other vocalizations to compare it to. I couldn't imagine some Hollywood movie coming up with a better example of what a primitive hominid might sound like even today.
Guest Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 PT, You said, "As for whichever alphabet he's using, keep in mind the species doesn't quite sound like us. Its a much deeper voice and at a higher speed at times." Nor do the natives in the deepest, darkest jungles of the South Pacific, but we can still use the IPA to write a phonemic transcription of their recorded voices. I can take any phoneme, let's say /th/ as in "think", and say it as low, or as high, or as fast as I can. It still doesn't change the nature of the phoneme. We have software (for example Syntrillium's Cool Edit Pro) which can change the sound to something our brains can comprehend as for tone and speed, but it's not going to change the pattern of the phoneme. Take the Chipmunks, for example. Very high, squeeky tone. Software can lower the tone into something that doesn't resemble a cat being strangled (thereby easing the pain on our ears), but the phonemes themselves, don't change. I guess I'll just haveta wait until his report comes out. Perhaps one day I'll meet him and be able to ask him myself.
Guest Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 There's so much for me to say here, however I will just address your comments to me. Don't tell me that's too much for ya Splash? You should open your horizons a bit. There is a methodology beyond the good ol' hum drum 'show me the body' argument. I'm glad you sound like someone who realizes that being a mod doesn't make you always right. And being a MOD doesn't make me wrong either. I know just as much about these creatures as you do. And that knowledge amounts to................pretty much nothing. Your position that there can't be Behavioral Science Study will obviously fall on deaf ears of those who do engage sasquatch in the field. And, like Mr. Cartwright, I too, would like to know who these folks are that engage sasquatch in the field. Surely you are not talking about yourself, are you? You know more about these creatures than the rest of us? (Remember, you are merely claiming to have multiple encounters. If I were you, I wouldn't claim anymore than that, lest you fall into the "pit of pretension" like midnightwalker1 did.) That's what you seem to be missing Splash. Are you sure you've actually seen one? Yes, more than one, less than three. I don't brag about it. Indiefoot also raises a good point there Splash. You've made a conclusion about what they are based on your "visual perception". Your words. So, basically you've made an observation of what they are, based on your interpretation of his/her appearance? So based on that, you were able to conclude they are ape. Right? Does this conclusion involve more then just because they are hairy all over? Did his/her face look like a gorilla or chimpanzee? Maybe like the apes in Planet Of The Apes? They weren't swinging from trees or eating bananas were they? Those are world proven indicators you know. lol Seriously, there was absolutely no behavior you witnessed that added to your conclusions? None? Nada? You concluded this very important fact solely on their overall physical and/or just facial appearance? I'm just trying to understand here what in their appearance leads you to conclude what they are. I don't know if I could ever have such refined skills myself. Because if you've made that crucial decision solely based on looks, wow! Yes, I got a real good look at both of them. My visuals took place in different areas and were years apart. They looked like apes. I had no opportunity to study their behavior, except to watch them run away from me, after they were apprised of my presence. One dropped down to quadruped and ran off through the brush, just like a dog. The other ran away in a loping gait, on two legs, similar to a chimpanzee walking upright. They were both very hairy and had ape faces. They were extremely surprised when they saw me. Their eyes went wide and then they both ran off. Just like an ape would. There was nothing in either of my visual perceptions to indicate to me that they were not some form of an ape. Facial characteristics looked more monkey than chimp. I saw no "behavior" in their actions, except surprise. And running away, of course. And once again you have danced around and ignored the obvious in the discussion of this thread.
Recommended Posts