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

[Guest]

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.

I was banned from the old BFF and my home IP address was blocked. So, what you mean by your statement is that there is no documentation of these interactions and that they are just more anecdotal stories. Then you need to phrase your statements better, you made it sound like critical information was being withheld. I understand how witnesses get treated on internet forums.

If you are arguing semantics about what I saw, yes it is possible that the dimensions and distances were miscalculated. But if you want to get into some tired old (ape vs human) debate, go look somewhere else, because I don't care what they are. My opinion is that what I saw looked and acted very ape like. I do not know any humans that are covered with hair, 9 feet tall, weigh over 600 lbs, have a ape looking face and eat leaves.

[indiefoot]

John, why do you keep bringing up "interaction" when just observing the BF for a brief period is what most often makes up a report. The description of any behaviors, such as eating leaves or running or stepping across a fence, is a behavior study of sorts and the only type of behavior data we are likely to get in most cases. The collection and study of those brief descriptions would be a behavior study of sorts, I suppose.

Interaction sounds like something that is controllable and repeatable and I don't hear that being implied anywhere, except maybe in Mikes case.

[Guest]

Interaction sounds like something that is controllable and repeatable.

Right, and that is what a behavioral study is. Like Jane Goodall living with the chimps.

and I don't hear that being implied anywhere, except maybe in Mikes case.

I have seen PT make multiple references to it, in this thread and elsewhere. It seems to me that he ( and he also mentioned Morehead and Berry) are implying that strange, spooky noises in the forest are interactions with Bigfoot. I can understand that part of it. Your mind does strange things in the dark, it's called pareidolia. It happens to everyone, myself included. If you EXPECT a Bigfoot to be there, it is there. If you record a unknown sound, it must be a Bigfoot. Sometimes it may even be a Bigfoot, who knows? But it's certainly not proof of anything. I myself have had a few encounters in the dark that I think were Bigfoot. The thing is, unlike PT I don't go on the BFF and other places and submit it as evidence of this creature. Because it is not.

[Guest]

Well you boys will just have to wait until likely tomorrow night for my response, as I've had a much higher priority project that I need to focus on completing. But Splash & JC, don't stop growing your knowledge of bigfoot on my account.

[Guest]

Nope, sorry PT. I am not waiting for anything. I am about to leave on a short expedition, I will be back next week. It may be possible to respond from my cell phone if I have a signal.

[Guest]

Don't bother PT, unless you want to return to the topic of this thread. This thread needs to get back on topic.

Thanks,

Splash

[Guest]

You can be good at making the other person look like the bad guy Splash, but it is you and a few others that discredited Nelson's claims, which I might add were the point of the thread.  I'd say my validating his work is right on topic in response to where the thread had degenerated when some can't appreciate his work.

Edited December 7, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[bipedalist]

I would love for Nelson to show on this thread so that some of the sound files members have that could be analyzed by his methodology could be used as an example. I for one would volunteer at least two files if he would be so willing to do so. I make no claim what they might be, just that they are unknown but associated over time and location to an area where a sighting occurred. It would also be interesting for him to take a specific example from within the Sierra Sounds to use as an instructive example. I'm sure he probably did something along these lines at some of his talks but since I have not been present for any of those or talked directly to those who have I guess I'm out of the loop.

[Guest]

You've got chatter?

Dang, of course you do. I hope he says yes. I really do.

I've only got footsteps and some grunts recorded. And that same night I woke up to some deep inhales that didn't pick up on the recorder. I wouldn't even mention that except that I woke up in the middle of the night hearing something picking up and what really really really really seemed to me something SMELLING my stuff on the picnic table.....and then and putting it back down.

It was the clank of the half full coleman fuel container in the stove cover that probably woke me up. The sound of the folded clothes being smelled was softer. On the recording hours later there was the sound of a zipper being zipped, or unzipped...but that was well after I had gone back to sleep.

:blink:

So that's anecdotal right there.

Bolan Lake Oregon.

[bipedalist]

I would say that if you've got that kind of activity around the picnic table ILBP, you should "skunk" the guys by setting out those scratch and sniff cards making sure to include the skunky

aroma, might consider setting out a couple globs of that mousetrap glue in strategic locations like near some peanut butter smeared on a tree to see if maybe some hair might get left or

better yet some hair follicles (watch out for bears though). Could get pretty messy though. Or you could just leave out the coffee, coffee water and pot with the stove simmering and see if they perhaps would have coffee waiting for you in the a.m. Those sound activated recorders could work pretty well in the environment of sniffer's, grunter's, inhalers and zippery types too. You could also leave some windchimes attached to the end of a picnic table and see what kind of pachelbel canon they can play (seriously, mini-windchimes). Or just leave them a bunch of pine cone ammunition and see how long it takes them to make the rounds

[Guest]

You can be good at making the other person look like the bad guy Splash, but it is you and a few others that discredited Nelson's claims, which I might add were the point of the thread.  I'd say my validating his work is right on topic in response to where the thread had degenerated when some can't appreciate his work.

Who is making who look bad, here? There you go again. Just because some people don't agree with what Scott Nelson claims he is doing, you think I and others are trying to make him look bad?

Or are you talking about yourself? Where in this thread, or any others for that matter, have I tried to make a member look bad? If members are looking bad on this forum, they are doing it for themselves. Nobody is helping them.

(You did a pretty good job of making an issue of RayG submitting Nelson's phonetic alphabet to a couple of Linguist groups. That was certainly off topic. )

This thread got off topic from the discussion of Scott Nelson's work. You did it...I did it. So let's move on.

Feel free to validate Mr. Nelson's work to your hearts content. But first, validate this for me and the other members on this forum:

How can Nelson, or anyone for that matter, decipher, translate, extrapolate, etc, etc, a phonetic alphabet/language from recordings that have not, and after almost 30 years it seems, cannot be proven to be made by a sasquatch? (And let's don't even bother to worry about the fact that Nelson has to slow the recordings down, to even make a guess. )

(Here's a hint for you: Without a living, breathing sasquatch to fill in the blanks, the recordings are nothing more than a bunch of gibberish.)

Where, in his Crypto Linguist training, does Mr. Nelson get the ability to decipher, translate, extrapolate, etc etc an unknown language? No other Crypto Linguist has that training.

(Here's a hint for you: Even if it could be proven to be a real language, without a living, breathing sasquatch to fill in the blanks, it would still be an unknown language.)

Validate those two points for me and everybody else, and then maybe we can have a conversation. The dance is over.

[indiefoot]

I don't know about anyone else but if sounds recorded in the Sierra recordings were proven to be a previously unknown language, I'd get a little excited. How likely is it that someone capable of inventing a new language and becoming fluent in it's use would perpetrate a hoax of this sort?

[Guest]

Splash, just because your interpretation that this kind of evidence is worthless because there isn't your required level of proof, does not mean that others see it that way. You can't just dictate that Nelson's nor Moorehead's work is invalid, especially since you apparently don't understand that he is simply breaking down the words/vocalizations heard into a phonetic alphabet. It's really pretty simple, although it takes special skills to to the work. Many take his and Moorehead's findings at face value Splash, based on the reports of activities that went along with the recordings. Like it or not, many are in the field conducting 'behavioral research' and are working under the same remote conditions and able to rule out people. Most of the time nothing happens, but other times, things do happen that are VERY REAL and witnessed by the researcher and that researcher only. And so yes JC, there ARE some in the field doing just what Jane Goodall and other behaviorists have done. Living with them probably not, but not even Goodall was with them all the time. It doesn't matter to many researchers that you say that bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist either. Guess what splash, it HAS been proven to exist to the satisfaction of thousands of witnesses and researchers. And that's good enough for them to accept the likelihood of positive results from people in the field like Moorehead. And thus the word & findings of a fellow researcher like Moorehead and Nelson are valid to many. It's you and a small handful who choose not to accept their work or even understand it.

When I go into the field, I use MY judgement and field experience when assessing whether something is bigfoot, or when it can be explained away as some other possible source. I'm very adept in the woods and yeah I've had many repeat visual AND non-visual encounters too. I also know the general area where a few of them live because I've seen one there and returned to have other encounters and make recordings. It is a very remote area and no chance that some people snuck in to trick me being nobody knows when I drive the hour + to get there.

Bottom line is Splash, you can't disprove the source of the Moorehead/Berry recordings either can you? And so therefore, many of us who are progressive in our research, do choose to accept the value of Nelson's work, and have had our own encounters offering somewhat similar results, so we see how their work can help piece things together. If you only hear "gibberish", well your take isn't very considerate with respect to appreciating the work people are doing out there. Earlier in this thread you said "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." That kind of allegation seems to demonstrate you have some deeper negative opinion that fuels your disqualification of their years of maintaining their findings. Gee, maybe it was Moorehead's plan 30+ years ago to have Nelson come along in the distant future to work on their recordings?

You really don't see that Nelson is simply taking HIS training and applying it to these and other recordings in order to assemble patterns that will allow US to be able to possibly understand in the future what they are saying? He didn't decipher their language Splash, he is only deciphering words. As Chris pointed out, "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." Nelson however is having to adapt the standards because there are probably sounds that don't quiet fit all the standards in use that we are accustomed to. And to achieve this, he also has to slow down their speech because they talk faster then we do. That isn't manipulation Splash, it is simply slowing it down for our ears and brains to be able to comprehend and hear elements that are naturally too accelerated for us to speak or break down into their component sounds.

As for the source of the recordings themselves, Moorehead and Berry have stuck by their story for how many decades? Are we supposed to believe you Splash over them? You weren't there Splash, they were! You are the one who doesn't have the knowledge of what they experienced in the field. Why is it so impossible for you to accept that some people really do have self initiated encounters in the woods? Are their any habituation claims you even believe? Habituation IS the process of behavioral research and it is a reality in this field. It is also partly what Moorehead/Berry were attempting to accomplish in communicating with their nighttime visitors, long before the term was ever realized in this field.

Just because there is no worldly proof of Sasquatch, does not invalidate the work and findings of people in the field. The nature of this study IS that we are dealing with a creature which does not want to be found. And so everything we can learn from one another, even anecdotal, is part of the process of how to understand them. Most every sighting report is the same, but that is one powerful influence that lends to their certain existence isn't it? Your anecdotal sighting is what YOU use to know they exist. So why should their similar experiences be of any less value in the scheme of things? And I'm not referring to just words, I'm talking about everything that goes into analyzing events and their behavior. And if in the future we can isolate certain words because of Nelson's work, OH maybe something like 'FRIEND', well that may just offer US something new to offer THEM. But if you can't see how these paths of understanding occur over time through this process of discovery and trial, or if you must discount everyone's interpretation (because sasquatch has not been proven in every case to your satisfaction), that's simply your own self-imposed restriction. Luckily many have learned that placing value on other's findings has more value then that, and is progressive in a field that stalls all too often due to doubters who don't know any better. That doesn't mean that researchers shouldn't leave room for doubt either, or that they should follow all alleged evidence without looking for other plausible explanations. But there is far more to be gained by exploring claims and studies, then there is at pooh poohing whatever comes along because you say it ain't so.

Bipedalist, I was going to suggest that you send something to Nelson, however I doubt he would discuss it here due to the environment that is apparent. I also have a few good tongue clacks ( I call them tongue tocks) that I am planning to post in the 'What Sounds Have You Heard or Recorded.. " thread so Imonacan & others can compare.

[Guest]

Pragmatic Theorist said: And so yes JC, there ARE some in the field doing just what Jane Goodall and other behaviorists have done. Living with them probably not, but not even Goodall was with them all the time.

Mularky. Prove it. Who? Where? Are they trained in Behavioral Sciences? What are their findings? Where can I read them?

It doesn't matter to many researchers that you say that bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist either.

And outrageous claims and theories with no substance do not matter to many researchers.

[Guest]

Sorry Flash, I know that was off topic again. He can answer in PM, if you prefer.