WSA Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Language, sure. Tool use to name another...but...I hesitate to call these strictly human attributes. Let's face it. The determination of human v. non is something that can only be parsed once a specimen is available PLUS lots of better field observations. In recorded history, only H. Sapiens have been considered "human" as there are no other serious extant contenders. When/if confirmation happens, suddenly we will have to reevaluate that way of thinking. This why it is very difficult to predict what the legal ramifications of a type specimen will be. Penal codes t/o the U.S. don't bother to set out the genetic and/or cultural qualifications of a victim in order for it to be deemed a homicide. That would be a waste of paper and ink. (Yes, inroads have been made lately trying to get certain large apes a measure of basic rights, but as far as I know, nobody has gone so far as to say whacking a gorilla with malice aforethought can get you life or lethal injection) So, ,what defines a homicide in the U.S. ? Strictly the killing a man/woman/child. What is killing something other than what is included in those three classifications? Not a homicide (so far). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I would like to see this "good" evidence....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160 Maybe fits in with the premise of the OP as an example of some good f/u and scientific analysis. I give the investigator props for including the transcript of the interview and above average interrogation skills. Norseman..have you spent much time with Scott Walker's analysis of the Sierra Sounds recordings? I don't know if Randy is referring to that evidence, but I think it is as good as it gets on this particular question. Also, there are many degrees of communication that qualify as "language." Monkeys can communicate things like "eagle coming" to "lion coming." To prove this, when researchers played these calls to a troop, they either looked up (for eagle) or down (for lion). That is a simple communication, but it does qualify as language. Language/no language is not a very useful demarcation for humanness. My dog has an audible language as do the wolves he descended from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Since we are discussing language as to be on a even playing field with Indians. I took it to mean that Sasquatch was on par with humans concerning language as opposed to animal calls that transmit basic information like danger or mating. I find the Sierra sounds suspect. Edited March 25, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Language is not necessary what the lower animals have even though they make sounds. A basic catalog of sound is not language it is communication. Language implies something deeper than mere communication. Sound generated communication is language when it transfers concept as opposed to information. Animals like wolves and coyotes may signal with sound that a hunt is on or food is at hand but language would be conferring afterwards how the hunt/meal was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Crow: You can define language many different ways... complete languages, partial languages, symbolic sounds, gestures....the permutations and combinations are pretty extensive. If you define it for purposes of cataloging humanness as "speaking the Queens' " well then no, Sasquatch is not likely to rise to that mark. My point is only there are degrees of language, and the definition chases its own tail as we tend to define it as "what humans use to communicate." Norse, you didn't say if you'd read up any on Mr. Walker's analysis. If you have, and still find it suspect, so be it. If not, I'd point you in that direction and be prepared to have your assumptions challenged. One other point too....who is to say that ALL BF would have the same language skills? Humans have reached a level of homogeneity, but you can ascribe this mostly to the ability to read and write. Primitive languages, despite the apocryphal story of Inuits having ump-teen descriptions for "snow", had varying levels of complexity. You tended to spend the most effort on describing things that are important to you (so I guess the Inuit example holds), but some cultures lacked words for certain concepts or ideas simply because they had no use for them. Even if BF had a language, it could be a very small lexicon. When you subtract out the human descriptions for things related to technology, the list gets way shorter. Plus, why use a long word when a short one, or even a gesture, grunt or facial expression conveys all you need to say? Edited March 25, 2015 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Do you mean the Navy linguist Scott Nelson? http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/listen-to-bigfoot-language-expert-scott.html Who has created a Sasquatch alphabet? http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/Bigfootlanguage.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I'm sorry, yes. I garbled his name. What do you think of his conclusions? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 26, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 26, 2015 I was referring to Scott Nelson and the Sierra Sounds. He certainly has the background to determine language from listening to those recordings. So Norseman believes those recordings suspect? Could it be that to rationalize shooting a BF that he cannot allow himself to believe they might be capable of speech? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Yeah, him. (Not the Governor or Wisconsin....my two worlds colliding there, a bit) I dunno Randy. I'm waiting to hear what Norseman thinks about it, if he has an opinion. When I first read Nelson's analysis, coming as it did from a guy who should know what a language sounds like, and with no predisposition to have an opinion on the topic of BF, it certainly got my attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) I was referring to Scott Nelson and the Sierra Sounds. He certainly has the background to determine language from listening to those recordings. So Norseman believes those recordings suspect? Could it be that to rationalize shooting a BF that he cannot allow himself to believe they might be capable of speech? Just wondering.Well I certainly think we are way premature in deciphering a creatures alphabet without bothering to prove they exist.......yes. But ask yourself this, Bluff creek was shot in what? 1968? The Sierra sounds were recorded when? In 1974? Why do we only have audio? Unlike Patty that was a chance encounter? The Sierra sounds happened at a particular hunting camp over many years........ You don't find that suspect? Where is the other evidence?I don't think they have meaningful language because I believe in what science tells me. Which states that language is a important part of development of the brain. A large brain means you will see the fruits of its labor......, music, art, architecture, technology and all of the rest of the trappings of a big brain and culture, etc.... We see NONE of that. If they were really human? I wouldn't have to shoot one to prove the exist. Edited March 26, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Granted, Nelson may be pushing the boundaries out a little too far with this but I would think he'd be the first to acknowledge it is only a working hypothesis, subject to revision and change. We have so little to go on that is tangible, I am glad there are those who have novel theories to propose. Remember too, he's not just pulling this theory out of his posterior...there is real science behind it. There are those with expert knowledge, and in the field of language he's got the bona fides. On the subject of language having the fruits you've listed, careful with those assumptions. That list would not be possible without language, of course, but they also wouldn't be possible without WRITTEN language...and entirely different (but obviously related) skill set. That fact that we learned to read and write might just be peculiar to our species. You also have to always be careful extrapolating all of natural history from only the (recorded) human experience. Given the pretty established fact that there have been multiple species of the genus Homo to have walked this earth up until now, and of which we know very little, this is an iffy practice. Still, given how enamored we all are with our really awesome humanness, it is an easy trap to fall into, yes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) But to your point about the lack of photos being suspect Norseman. I guess my thought is: No more suspect than the lack of any other clear, unambiguous footage since the P/G was shot, for all the usual reasons. If I am correct , because too, all the SS tapes were made at night, through a remote microphone. The subjects were alleged to have been recorded out of sight and under cover from those doing the recording. Under those circumstance, if true, it doesn't make me wonder at all why there is no footage. If it were that easy, it would have been done more by now, we know. Edited March 26, 2015 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 26, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) It is pretty well accepted that whales and dolphins have language. So given enough intelligence we are not the only species with language. For all we know BF are kissing cousins to humans. The Sierra sounds BF only approached at night. They made numerous attempts at photography but when they would go out of there shelter, the BF would move away. At times the BF they were dealing with were so aggressive, especially at first, pictures were the last thing they wanted to get because it required them to leave the safety of their log shelter. Photographs are tough to get, even with benign and relatively friendly BF. For the most part, the BF in that area were not exactly friendly. I thought the Nelson alphabet thing was a stretch too. But he admits, that until some human has repeated face to face contact with a BF, to develop context, we can never learn their language. The real danger in shooting one is that you may not know what you have done, until after the fact. Edited March 26, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Granted, Nelson may be pushing the boundaries out a little too far with this but I would think he'd be the first to acknowledge it is only a working hypothesis, subject to revision and change. We have so little to go on that is tangible, I am glad there are those who have novel theories to propose. Remember too, he's not just pulling this theory out of his posterior...there is real science behind it. There are those with expert knowledge, and in the field of language he's got the bona fides. On the subject of language having the fruits you've listed, careful with those assumptions. That list would not be possible without language, of course, but they also wouldn't be possible without WRITTEN language...and entirely different (but obviously related) skill set. That fact that we learned to read and write might just be peculiar to our species. You also have to always be careful extrapolating all of natural history from only the (recorded) human experience. Given the pretty established fact that there have been multiple species of the genus Homo to have walked this earth up until now, and of which we know very little, this is an iffy practice. Still, given how enamored we all are with our really awesome humanness, it is an easy trap to fall into, yes? The Incas had no written language, but they had domesticated livestock, vegetables, terraced farming, developed metal working and stone working, etc. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts