georgerm Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Ray we are going around and around, so let's call it a truce. You remain a skeptic and I will remain the proponent until the most renowned linguist in the world comments. In the meantime, can you post BF sounds that you believe are real?
Guest RayG Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 I see it as some people holding up what they consider strong evidence of bigfoot, while I'm pointing out the shortcomings in said evidence. Hopefully we agree that the evidence presented so far isn't of a sufficient quality to enable bigfoot to make it as a zoological classification. And no, I can't post any sounds that I believe are of a real BF. RayG
southernyahoo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 And my most recent point is that if Dr. Kirlin had truly produced something worthwhile, he would have had it published in a reputable journal, not a bigfoot book. My point before that, was that 20 years ago a simple question showed how woefully easy it would be to alter sound characteristics. And my point before that, was that a crypto-linguist is simply not qualified to make definitive pronouncements about languages they are not trained in. (A PhD in linguistics also concluded it was beyond Nelson's area of expertise.) RayG My only point Ray, is if you are going to use the old hand cup comment from Krantz as a catch all debunk you are going to get called on it. It is well within Nelsons right to cite Kirlin's analysis because the science used is valid. You may think something is hoaxed, but that doesn't mean it is, or that the science is flawed. You can take issue with absolute statements where you choose, but if you don't understand the science part of it, you'll not likely see the proof behind the statements.
Guest Cervelo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) SY, And until someone can show us a Bigfoot in a zoo talking your going to get called out on it Edited July 27, 2012 by Cervelo
yowiie Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) If they could talk, I am quite sure the would have told us to get out of thier habitat by now. I was within 30 meteres of one of these guys and he never said Hi as he passed by, how rude. Edited July 27, 2012 by MikeG ...implied profanity removed
Guest Cervelo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 ^^^ I'm pretty confident if they have half the capabilities attributed to them we wouldn't be having this conversation;) Everytime I've encountered unknowns in the woods I've spoken you should try it! And the only thing thats every spoken back is another person who I confirmed visually. If you truly believe they are a hidden people that have all these amazing human qualities and want to interact with us then quit sneeking around in the woods quietly! That might work for an ape but to a higher intelligence that does not convey openess or good intent, most prey animals can tell by a predators body language the intent. Of course if you buy into the mind reading then this should be a whole lot easier than it seems to be wouldn't you think?
Guest thermalman Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Agreed. I'm not saying BF doesn't exist, but the talking and communication aspect seems over the line.
southernyahoo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 SY, And until someone can show us a Bigfoot in a zoo talking your going to get called out on it Not if we use science to analyize objective evidence, People want science, but will turn around and think they can debunk it with an opinion from an Anthropologist quoting a researcher who asked an expert about a particular aspect of sounds. Things get lost in translation, and becomes the debunk for the entire idea that the Sierra Sounds aren't made by modern humans, as we know them to be. So, are we going to use science here or not?
Guest Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 I guess I can't be surprised... if people won't consider audio, when a subject is not actually seen making the sounds in question. So far (to my limited knowledge, anyhow) there is recorded audio, that sounds like speech, and additional recorded audio that compares.. as well as comparible audio from various locales by amateur recordists (researchers), that include screams, howls, whoops, growls, and various other vocals. How do we use science further, other than to compare and share ? In other words..where do the amateurs go from there , until a subject is seen producing the sounds or speech. A crypto linguist declaring recorded audio is a language.. is great, but science (professionals) do not seem to take witnesses of this audio, or their word as a witness.. as fact. In fact, they don't seem to take any of the thousands of witness reports, as fact.. without the creature in front of them. For me, all I feel I can do (further) ..is to keep collecting the audio, and hope to get a better look, myself. Nothing I bring back, will convince anyone, of anything... using science, or not. Just the way.. I see it has all shaped up, for me.
Guest okiesquatchartist Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Good post and you are right--it most likely won't be accepted until scientists/skeptics see it happening. Fortunately for me, their opinion didn't mean a whole lot. Speaking of bigfoot speaking...lol...I'm sure just about everyone has listened to the recent MK video of the squatch ruth the ice chest. To me, it sounds like there is two separate squatches conversing. The audio definitely doesnt sound like it's a person--I'm the furthest thing from an expert, but it just sounds like a human couldn't produce those sounds vocally. To me it definitely sounds like language as well. Edited July 27, 2012 by MikeG .....please do not quote the preceding post
Cotter Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Couple quick questions. Are folks contending that hoaxers are now creating a new "BF" language to add to the phenomenon? Complete with inflections and phrasing patterned such that they can be recognizable as speech? Very educated hoaxers I would say to know these things. Secondly, have all the languages of the world been documented? http://southcarolina1670.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/ancient-tablet-shows-undiscovered-language/ "More than 500 languages may be spoken by fewer than ten people" http://anthropology.net/2007/09/19/5-hotspots-where-languages-are-becoming-extinct/
Guest Cervelo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 ^^^^ No I'm contending that hoaxers do their thing and that most people use way to much of this in their analysis Please understand that I fully appreciate and enjoy audio here's a little something I recorded sometime ago and just heard again last week! There is also a thread called Whoopage with more info
bipedalist Posted July 27, 2012 BFF Patron Posted July 27, 2012 Maybe some do, the unfortunate reality for those non-believers or scoftical pseudo-skeptics is that BF does have a voice and does have phonemic capacity beyond simple imitation. And, wait for it, the sounds are in many ways very similar to the samurai in the Sierra Sounds, like it or not.
Guest Cervelo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 ^^^^ Bi, If you took me to your research area and we heard Bigfoot speak that would be confirmation for me of something compelling and as with some my own experiences, I would be convinced that my interpetation was correct but since I can't prove it scientifically my opinion of what I heard or recorded wouldn't prove anything but it would be fun!!! Maybe some day I'll get lucky
Recommended Posts