This Is A Neanderthal.

[southernyahoo]

At least you admit it Stan. I think you will be wrong on the speech. While it may often be heard in short bursts, it is articulation beyond any animal or non-human ape. We will have to make a subhuman classification eventually if we don't include them as fully human on the grounds of speech. The reports do include it from time to time, but likely a more rare experience. 

 

Humanoid only means like a human..

 

 

They might qualify as a new species but to be that much like us and not in the same genus would make them very easy to prove with DNA. They can't help but shed everywhere they go. It only takes a few hundred base pair from a single gene in the mtDNA to show it's separation at the level of genus.

[Guest]

Hmmm ... I suppose I see what you mean about time travel.

 

I don't see what would be far out, biologically, about habituation.   Deer do it.  Racoons do it.   What would be odd about any other biological "thing" doing it?

 

I don't see what would be far out about speech.   We do it.

 

I really don't see what is far out about cloaking ASSUMING it's a side effect of infrasound, which we know exists, considering how waves act in fluids like a human body including eyes and optic nerves.   (If you try to explain it some other way, then I'm going to dig my heels in until you produce convincing evidence.)

 

It's just one person's opinion, not saying it's conclusive, but to me those last three seem less "far out" than many things we take for granted like ... microwave ovens and cell phones for instance, and yet we've come to take them for granted.

 

MIB

When deer and raccoons habituate, we get photos of them on the porch or digging in the trash.

 

Any convincing citation on the cloaking capabilities of infrasound? Of course infrasound has never been recorded and measured during a bigfoot sighting or even shortly before or after. Infrasound shouldn't really be touted as a fact in bigfoot lore yet.

At least you admit it Stan. I think you will be wrong on the speech. While it may often be heard in short bursts, it is articulation beyond any animal or non-human ape. We will have to make a subhuman classification eventually if we don't include them as fully human on the grounds of speech. The reports do include it from time to time, but likely a more rare experience. 

 

 

They might qualify as a new species but to be that much like us and not in the same genus would make them very easy to prove with DNA. They can't help but shed everywhere they go. It only takes a few hundred base pair from a single gene in the mtDNA to show it's separation at the level of genus.

Some birds are know to be capable of mimicking speech and some even use it for their own purposes. That doesn't make them human. Same with bigfoot. If they do use something like speech or even real speech that does not mean they are human. Australopithecines may have had some of the same genes that enable speech today in humans. They may have had a primitive language as well. If bigfoot descends from them as well then they may retain some of that facility today.

[MIB]

In reverse order:

 

I'm not touting infrasound from lore, I'm talking from personal experience.  You can dismiss it if you wish.  I can't. 

 

Deer and raccoons are dumb animals which are not trying to avoid having their picture taken, they don't even know what a picture is so far as we know.  If you have not hear the idea, whether you choose to embrace it or not, that BF appear to be deliberately avoiding having their picture taken, you're not paying attention. 

 

We need to consider all the angles, starting with the data (reports), and follow them wherever it is they lead.   We cannot, as you seem to be doing, start with the pre-conceived ideas and only consider data that supports them if we wish to eventually find truth rather than just support dogma.

 

MIB

[MIB]

Add, because the editor failed me: The approach you seem to take supports Science ... big "S", the institution, while violating the underlying premises it purportedly holds up as the ideal and proper methodology and approach.

[southernyahoo]

 

Some birds are know to be capable of mimicking speech and some even use it for their own purposes. That doesn't make them human. Same with bigfoot. If they do use something like speech or even real speech that does not mean they are human. Australopithecines may have had some of the same genes that enable speech today in humans. They may have had a primitive language as well. If bigfoot descends from them as well then they may retain some of that facility today.

 

To have the facility to even produce the same sounds as we do , which requires certain vocal tract proportions among apes actually puts them in the same category physiologically and neurologically concerning motor control and anatomy. They would likely have the same mutations in the gene FOXP2 which the other known apes do not have. This runs in the genus homo only from what we know right now.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Hmmm ... I suppose I see what you mean about time travel.

I don't see what would be far out, biologically, about habituation. Deer do it. Racoons do it. What would be odd about any other biological "thing" doing it?

I don't see what would be far out about speech. We do it.

I really don't see what is far out about cloaking ASSUMING it's a side effect of infrasound, which we know exists, considering how waves act in fluids like a human body including eyes and optic nerves. (If you try to explain it some other way, then I'm going to dig my heels in until you produce convincing evidence.)

It's just one person's opinion, not saying it's conclusive, but to me those last three seem less "far out" than many things we take for granted like ... microwave ovens and cell phones for instance, and yet we've come to take them for granted.

MIB

OK. But my gripe about these issues is that they are touted by folks here who claim almost on demand contact with sasquatch. They claim to know sasquatch language (they are fluent in several it seems). They claim to be friends with them. Yet not one shred of evidence. We are asked to believe. So my point is that the only testable evidence indicates nothing but animal, albeit an odd one.

[Guest DWA]

Well, I'm not even sure how odd it is.  Although a more complete fossil record might help with that.

 

But yep, there has to be evidence for one's claim; and I'm not seeing it on language; Homo; or anything else other than what the vast bulk of the encounter literature seems to suggest.

[Drew]

 

I really don't see what is far out about cloaking ASSUMING it's a side effect of infrasound, which we know exists, considering how waves act in fluids like a human body including eyes and optic nerves.   (If you try to explain it some other way, then I'm going to dig my heels in until you produce convincing evidence.)

 

 

There are studies that show certain frequencies of Infrasound can cause hallucinations.  Maybe the Bigfoot isn't causing the infrasound, the infrasound is causing the Bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Yes.  And we must find the aliens who are producing the infrasound.

[Drew]

Warp Drive Motors produce infrasound, and the Bigfoot-Hallucinations they generate are just to distract our eyes from the spaceships.

I think you nailed it.

[MIB]

OK. But my gripe about these issues is that they are touted by folks here who claim almost on demand contact with sasquatch. They claim to know sasquatch language (they are fluent in several it seems). They claim to be friends with them. Yet not one shred of evidence. We are asked to believe. So my point is that the only testable evidence indicates nothing but animal, albeit an odd one.

 

Are they claiming fluency in native Sasquatch or are they claiming Sasquatch understands / uses our languages?  I thought it was the latter.  

 

Could you be clearer about "nothing but animal?"   Are you saying "dumb ape" or are you saying merely F&B, no woo?   The difference between those two interpretations affects how I might try to address what you're saying.  

[Guest Stan Norton]

Are they claiming fluency in native Sasquatch or are they claiming Sasquatch understands / uses our languages?  I thought it was the latter.  

 

Could you be clearer about "nothing but animal?"   Are you saying "dumb ape" or are you saying merely F&B, no woo?   The difference between those two interpretations affects how I might try to address what you're saying.  

 Both I expect! But specifically I mean people thinking, no stating as fact, that sasquatch understand and speak several Indo-European tongues! Please don't tell me you buy into that, man...

 

As I said, I think that sasquatch must be a singlular creature but it will prove to be an animal, not dumb at all, but adapted to its own peculiar circumstances. That is all. This is mysterious enough without adding in dimension shifting, cloaking and telepathy etc! We have enough issues with trying to get things looked at in the first place so I do wish the fringe would stop making it worse...!

[Guest DWA]

^^^When I talk about the general ignorance of science and how it operates that permeates this issue, I am not just talking about the bigfoot skeptics.

 

I am, in fact, referring with special emphasis to those for whom what they "know" is not what they know, and whose assertions do  far more to drive away those who could enlighten us than they do to enlighten us.

[MIB]

I would suspect if they're as intelligent as they must be to avoid detection, they probably connect some phrases to specific situations and get the jist of what is being said.    For instance, if each time they hear the sound "Bob", the same person turns to the speaker, they might figure out that "Bob" somehow equates to that specific person.    Likewise, they might recognize some of the short phrases parents use to communicate with their kids.   It's possible they could mimic some of the sounds, particularly the short ones like names.

 

None of that is the same as speaking the language.   Carrying on a conversation might be possible but if so, it means they have someone who already speaks the language to practice with, it's not mere mimicry.    Is that happening?   If so, only with extreme infrequency.  

 

As far as us speaking their language ... well, if Scott Nelson is correct, I doubt we can do so with any fluency because we don't seem to be able to deliver the morphemes with the same rapidity and I'm not sure we're physically able to readily produce all of them.   I suspect we can deliver meaning via very short phrases they might understand, but that's not carrying on a conversation, either.   

 

All of this, though, has to be preceded with "I think" 'cause truly I don't know, its speculation.

 

What I come away with is a lot of questions and ideas for experiments to try to answer them but I don't have a setting to do the experiments in right now. 

 

MIB

[southernyahoo]

MIB, conversations can take place with short sentences. I doubt BF is going to sit down and discuss a complex subject with anyone, but more direct , to the point, and on matters at hand types of communication would be more likely. There could be more complexity in the drawn out rapid chatter that Nelson attempts to break down but the shorter stuff is easier to discern to me as speech.

 

I take the name given to the Samurai Chatter as an admission that it does sound so human and is like a language capable human.