Guest Transformer Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 ^If there are characteristics consistent with a language it must be a Human language because that is all we humans could deduce from a recording without visual clues. A non-human language is beyond the ability of Nelson or anyone else to even try and categorize based only on recorded sounds. Did anybody actually read what Mr. Chomsky has to say in his reply to RayG??? Considering that nobody saw what was making the sounds in the Sierra Sounds recordings I think the first thing one has to do is eliminate humans from the list of possible sources of the recordings. That has not been done and until humans are eliminated then the most obvious explanation as the source of the sounds is human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 If bigfoot makes the same phonemic sounds as humans then they are likely humans, but a different breed. You wouldn't be able to eliminate the human aspect of them. This ofcoarse makes it more difficult to prove anything instead of easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 And if they are likely humans, with enough intelligence to develop a language, then we should have some other evidence of that intelligence -- tools, weapons, shelter, use of fire, use of decoration/clothing, etc. Like this tribe... Hmmm, doesn't look very promising for bigfoot being human. Certainly not in the sense that we would define human. Oh, and I had another response from a linguist, who said he's not heard of Nelson's research, that it seems highly implausible, but he can't make any pronouncements without any real data. Spoken like a true scientist. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) There was a DNA analysis on a Bigfoot hair that wasn't part of Dr. Ketchum's study. The results are posted in the book Tribal Bigfoot by David Paulides. It came back as human. Edited July 29, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Who plucked the hair from the bigfoot? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 OS, Right you got human hair from a human..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) OS, Right you got human hair from a human..... lol indeed they did, since it came back as human. Human hair from a human. @RayG it was from a lady who got repeated visits. Edited July 29, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Yeah.... riiiiiiight... My hairbrush is full of bigfoot hair. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I was just informed the video I posted above (tribe meets white man for first time) is a fake. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4840/is-the-tribe-meets-white-man-for-the-first-time-video-fake My bad, though I've yet to see any tribe of humans that don't have some sort of shelters, clothing, weapons, etc. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 ^That's true, but those things were learned and passed around. It was a looooong process in the making. There is an answer for everything. I'm going to make up one right now. An ancient prehistoric culture banished all really big extremely young children to the forests because there wasn't enough food to go around. They dismissed it as an offering. Since humans are communal, these big children started to clump together here and there and some survived. They didn't have cloths, shelter, fire, or weapons because these thing were never learned by them. The weak ones died off and the ones that were fast, strong, and hairy enough to endure the elements survived. Those genes were passed on as they multiplied. There may not be any tribe of humans that don't have some sort of shelters, clothing, weapons, etc., but there have been ferrel humans throughout history that have gone without. The ancient Greeks kicked out babies. Who knows where that practice was originated? Humans have been around long before we started to write this stuff down. If ferrel humans were common to an area, there is no doubt the ones that survived would hook up. Maybe even increase their chances of survival by hooking up. I don't believe it for a second, but I like to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Yes, but there's a flaw in your argument... if those feral humans (sasquatches) were banished from humankind entirely, how is it they picked up structured language, but not the ability to make shelters, clothing, tools, and weapons? Where are the blankets made out of animals hides, the teeth necklaces from unfortunate but entirely too stupid hunters? These things can braid horse manes, run as fast as Steve Austin, bury their dead, hides their tracks, and open cans of beans, but they haven't figured out how to make a lean-to? Spa-zee-da!!! (I don't believe it, in sasquatchese) RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Well Ray, you didn't let me finish. I have yet to bring in their alien overlord mentors into the picture. I believe all of those other factors may have been embellished a bit. Just another thing that has been known to happen within human culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Oh. Ok then, makes sense. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 If necessity is the mother of invention, then what is the necessity of acquiring tool use or fire if you don't need them? Fire is a necessity now for humans for warmth and to cook food so that it is digestible. BF apparently don't need that added warmth nor do they need to cook food to digest it. Regarding tools or weapons, although some reports indicate they use crude clubs (broken off branches) or other simple tools, they don't seem to have a requirement to have tools for survival. They travel with their own locomotion to forage and hunt in places of their choosing and don't require carrying heavy loads. So, then what is the need they would have to fill by creating tools? In effect they may very well eschew the use of tools because in order to have tools would require that they carry them with them wherever they go. Tools for them can be quickly made and used wherever they are, a rock, a broken branch, and that's about it. That leaves language as a necessity. In order to hunt cooperatively language would be very helpful. In this case I think they developed language in order to hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Spa-zee-da ! Good one RayG ! Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts