Operation Persistence

[dmaker]

^^ It's Gandalf.

[Guest]

If we ever see it carrying a staff, I'm outta there. 

[Guest DWA]

But MK Davis has seen it with a staff and a "digger Indian" topknot.  I think you need to suspend judgment in a scientific manner.

[Guest]

Good point. 

[Guest DWA]

Of course, any time you have proof of MK Davis, just let me know.  [eyeroll big time]

[southernyahoo]

 

 

It's my understanding that chimps have been observed mimicking speech. Regardless, we believe they're excellent mimics, voices or otherwise.

For example: http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

And...

2 points:

1. learning one word 'mama' is far flung from being speech or sentences like the 'Samurai sounds'

2. That chimpanzee was probably painstakingly taught that one word by someone. Samurai sounds have been learned by Bigfoot in the wild.

Two completely different things.

1) How do you know it is a language they are speaking?

Probably? I can accept that it could be as simple as a mimicry.

 

 

 

Mimicry is a prerequisite to speech, we all know speech when we hear enough of it. Mimicy has to be there to communicate because the sounds have to be matched and correlated to abstract concepts or objects. Chimps have different calls for "snake" and other predators etc but cannot produce the wide range of accoustics with their mouth to encode a language, plus, their FOXP2 gene doesn't have the same mutations as humans which seems to give us fine muscle control of articulators.. Language is recombinitorial in where the sounds or phonemes are rearranged to create new meanings. Those elements are studied by R. Scott Nelson.

 

If you understand the mechanics of language, you'd be able to understand how some are convinced it's not just mimicry.  . 

[norseman]

 

Mimicry is a prerequisite to speech, we all know speech when we hear enough of it. Mimicy has to be there to communicate because the sounds have to be matched and correlated to abstract concepts or objects. Chimps have different calls for "snake" and other predators etc but cannot produce the wide range of accoustics with their mouth to encode a language, plus, their FOXP2 gene doesn't have the same mutations as humans which seems to give us fine muscle control of articulators.. Language is recombinitorial in where the sounds or phonemes are rearranged to create new meanings. Those elements are studied by R. Scott Nelson.

 

 

 

If you understand the mechanics of language, you'd be able to understand how some are convinced it's not just mimicry. 

 

 

 . 

A call is not a word, deer for that matter have a danger call that sounds like a sharp exhale through the nasal cavity. Calls convey meaning but its not a language.

 

If Sasquatch has a language like our own? Then why do people report them making animal calls? Like whoops, shrieks, etc? Why not just say "BOB? Are you there?" in your own language? Which we may not understand just like we do not understand the language of a Amazonian tribe. But if I hear them speak........I'm not confusing that with animal calls.

 

Also, mimicry cannot be a hard foundation for speech, we have parrots that have a larger vocabulary than some two year olds.........that doesn't mean your going to be having a conversation with them any time soon. Thus the confusion.......

Edited May 22, 2013 by norseman

[southernyahoo]

 

 

 

 

 . 

A call is not a word, deer for that matter have a danger call that sounds like a sharp exhale through the nasal cavity. Calls convey meaning but its not a language.

 

If Sasquatch has a language like our own? Then why do people report them making animal calls? Like whoops, shrieks, etc? Why not just say "BOB? Are you there?" in your own language? Which we may not understand just like we do not understand the language of a Amazonian tribe. But if I hear them speak........I'm not confusing that with animal calls.

 

Also, mimicry cannot be a hard foundation for speech, we have parrots that have a larger vocabulary than some two year olds.........that doesn't mean your going to be having a conversation with them any time soon. Thus the confusion.......

 

 

 Parrots mimic, though I'm sure that is linked to another evolutionary benefit other than true communication.

 

You can't have an extremely complex conversation over long distances, this is why we don't try it when yelling across a field for instance. Instead, we just holler "hey. come here"!

 

The more subtle phonetics of speech don't travel across great distances due to some of their higher frequencies, and meaning would get lost, plus when having to shout them we run out of air before just a few words can be said.  

 

Bigfoot likely would do the same across great distances, just a few syllables at a time. If we don't know what the loud calls mean, then we don't know they aren't words.

 

Think about this, if you've raised children. The first thing they do when exploring their voice is to start mimicing the sounds you repeat to them. Before long they master pronunciation and it's use to convey a meaning. You don't convey the right meaning if you can't make the sound correctly. Thats mimcry or immitation at the core of it all.

[norseman]

 Parrots mimic, though I'm sure that is linked to another evolutionary benefit other than true communication.

 

 

 

That's exactly what a mimicry is a evolutionary benefit of mimicking something else.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry

 

 

In evolutionary biology, mimicry is the similarity of one species to another which protects one or both.^[1] This similarity can be in appearance, behaviour,sound, scent and location, with the mimics found in similar places to their models.^[2]

Mimicry occurs when a group of organisms,^[3] the mimics, evolve to share common perceived characteristics with another group, the models.^[4] The evolution is driven by the selective action of a signal-receiver, or dupe,^[5] such as birds that use sight to identify palatable insects (the mimics), whilst avoiding the noxious models.

 

You can't have an extremely complex conversation over long distances, this is why we don't try it when yelling across a field for instance. Instead, we just holler "hey. come here"!

 

The more subtle phonetics of speech don't travel across great distances due to some of their higher frequencies, and meaning would get lost, plus when having to shout them we run out of air before just a few words can be said.  

 

Bigfoot likely would do the same across great distances, just a few syllables at a time. If we don't know what the loud calls mean, then we don't know they aren't words.

 

 

 

 

Well exactly...........but "Hey you, come here!" is still language with meaning...........as well as yelling "Hey you! Go away!" which has a the exact opposite meaning. Half of each statement is exactly the same to the outside ear, but it's the second half that seals the action of the listener that understands your language.

 

If I do not understand language then I'm just going to yell and get your attention, and then when your looking at me probably convey meaning through body language. If I pick up a stick and swing it menacingly at you and puff out my chest that probably means go away. Whatever.

 

I seriously do not think a Squatch has that kind of understanding over language. If they did we would see the fruits of it manifest itself in many other ways that we just do not see with them. But that doesn't mean that they do not listen to us and observe us and try to mimic us.

 

 

Think about this, if you've raised children. The first thing they do when exploring their voice is to start mimicing the sounds you repeat to them. Before long they master pronunciation and it's use to convey a meaning. You don't convey the right meaning if you can't make the sound correctly. Thats mimcry or immitation at the core of it all.

 

 

No that's not mimicry at all. That's an adolescent of the same species learning how to communicate within that species only to others of it's own species. It's not for the advantage of mimicking another species to gain some evolutionary advantage.

[southernyahoo]

 

That's an adolescent of the same species learning how to communicate within that species only to others of it's own species.

 

 

 

 

Which starts with mimicry (replication) of sounds  Like crawling then walking before you run. You cannot learn a language if you can't first perceive it and replicate it's signals.

 

If they replicate our vocal signals, then there's not much to prevent language in sasquatch.

[norseman]

 

 

That's an adolescent of the same species learning how to communicate within that species only to others of it's own species.

 

 

 

 

Which starts with mimicry (replication) of sounds  Like crawling then walking before you run. You cannot learn a language if you can't first perceive it and replicate it's signals.

 

If they replicate our vocal signals, then there's not much to prevent language in sasquatch.

 

 

Except for the small fact that a Squatch is not a human child (Homo Sapien Sapien).

[southernyahoo]

Any member of genus homo would likely have evolved a language. It's hotly debated though concerning Neanderthals, because some don't think it's vocal tract was proportioned correctly with descended larynx to produce quantal vowels. These are clearly heard though in perported Sasquatch vocalizations and Neanderthals had our version of the FOXP2 gene.

[Guest]

If they did we would see the fruits of it manifest itself in many other ways that we just do not see with them. 

 

Agreed. One of the hallmarks of the genus Homo is culture. I don't think you'd have language without culture since language is the medium through which it would be passed down first, before writing or anything else (and it's probably the whole reason language develops in the first place). Wood apes demonstrate zero material culture. Not only does that make their use of language highly improbable, it also make it very unlikely that they're Homo. Even Neandertal had art and ceremony and made tools and clothing (and therefore must have had language). Trying to place wood apes in the same category as us and Neandertal is more an exercise in wishful thinking than anything else, IMO.

 

I acknowledge they make sounds that appear language-like, but they're also apparently accomplished mimics. They parrot all kinds of sounds, not just our speech. 

Edited May 23, 2013 by bipto

[Guest DWA]

bipto:

 

Other than to agree with you on your assessment of what these animals appear to be, I am going to say one other thing about "wood ape."

 

It sure makes your site easier to get to than texasbigfoot.  You guys did it for the keyboard-friendliness, didn't you.

[norseman]

Any member of genus homo would likely have evolved a language. It's hotly debated though concerning Neanderthals, because some don't think it's vocal tract was proportioned correctly with descended larynx to produce quantal vowels. These are clearly heard though in perported Sasquatch vocalizations and Neanderthals had our version of the FOXP2 gene.

 

So what your hypothesizing is that a "9 foot tall completely covered in hair with a mid tarsal break" Hominid is somewhere in the evolutionary tree between us and Neanderthals?